Image talk:Lipadom.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOTE: The image is from the index.hr portal, who apparently holds copyright. It is fair use for the purpose of neonazism article, the illustration of indroctination of Croatian children with hate and black-uniforms of Jure Francetic that are still very popular. Some people want to hide the truth and it is very important to show the truth to the world. The picture has been proposed for deletion for bias, but the concensus vote was keep. Also, note that in Croatia, which is not US and not a EU member, amateur pictures are not covered with copyright law, and in fact fw pictures are copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maayaa (talk • contribs).
Wikipedia:Copyright says for images: Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. There is no public domain indication for this image on the Index web site. It must be deleted. And just for the record, Maayaa's statement above, the illustration of indroctination of Croatian children with hate and black-uniforms of Jure Francetic that are still very popular, is a malicious lie. If Maayaa keeps removing the "no license" tag, I'll make sure that an administrator takes the appropriate steps. --Zmaj 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The fair use is a disclaimer for copyrighted items. So, as you claim index.hr owns copyright, than fair use applies here. It is a tag speciffically for this purpose. Indoctrination of croatian children is what you want to hide, by any means possible. It has been voted and discussed and concensus was to keep it, precisely as an illustration of horrible things which happen in Croatia. Maayaa 11:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- There was no consensus. --Zmaj 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- As for fair use, you're wrong. Wikipedia:Fair use says: Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: (...) 8. An image found on the Internet whose original source is unknown and that happens to contain the subject. Therefore, this image cannot be protected by fair use. --Zmaj 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note: The image is not marked as copiryghted. So, until it gets marked as copyrighted, no constrains are imposed to any use of this picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.18.16.251 (talk • contribs). (moved here from image page by Ante Perkovic)
-
-
-
-
- So what'? It still clasifies as image found on the Internet whose original source is unknown and that happens to contain the subject and it means it is not acceptable as fair use, what is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples (see point 8
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The point 8 is not applicable here. The source is index.hr - a well known one. How they get the picture - this is another question.--Purger 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here is another view/prospective of the same group of people wearing the Ustashi uniforms - at Bleiburg, most certainly: [1], [2]--Purger 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Is this image found on the internet? YES.
- Is this image's original source unknown? YES.
- Are you blind? The two well-known sources (www.index.hr and www.novilist.hr)confirmed the same origin of this picture - the Ustashi wearing their uniforms at Bleiburg, Austria!
- So, which part You don't understand? --Ante Perkovic 20:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The image does have a known source - the portals are not SOME UNVERIFIABLE BLOGS outside of the law, and hence, image source is known. Fair use applies by wiki policies and US law. You are just plain wrong - image is not with unknown/unverifiable source, and this provision does not apply here. And be convinced, whatever the case this illustration can stay - either as it is, or in an uncopyrighted form (and that IS possible, just as text can be reworded, images can be retouched, and we are going to fight for the image illustrating the point to the very end if you want to push it, and if you think it will bring you good things, then do it). The point is, your real concern is not copyright, it is hiding the essence the picture illustrates, and you are well aware of this. And as always, such bad faith attempts eventually fail. There are many ways for this legitimate illustration to stay, so if you want to push it to the end, be aware that there are people who are determined to fight and win this - and since you intimately know you are wrong, you can also know you are going to lose this battle, but the choice of cost is yours. My advice to you is to drop your bad-faith attempts of censorship, it will not do you any good. Maayaa 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please, Maayaa, refrain from such nonsense. Your assumptions about what other people think and know are maybe amusing, but they do not have anything to do with the issue whether the image is valid. As for the source being known, see my post below (original source). --Zmaj 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You should refrain from insults. If you cant make sense of what I said that does not make it nonsense, nor will your pretense help. Maayaa 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
The www.index.hr does not claim any copyright on this picture. It is located within a series of images of which not a single is marked as copyrighted!!! Also, the original footnote of this picture is 16.5.2004 . Bleiburg, Austrija . Bez komentara. Translated into English - May 16, 2004. Bleiburg, Austria. No comment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purger (talk • contribs).
- I have found a general claim of copyright on index page. so, apparently index IS a source. But fair use applies. Maayaa 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- It does not. Point 8 of Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples clearly says original source. The original source is the person who shot the picture, not index.hr, which merely posted the image. Therefore, fair use does not apply in this case. --Zmaj 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am the admin who is processing this image for deletion. There is only one condition under which it can be kept: Find out who owns the copyright to the image and have him/her release it to the public domain or license it under a Creative Commons License. An image is copyrighted unless it is specifically stated that it is not. The original source is not known. Neither index.hr or ex-yupress.com states where the picture came from (in fact, the latter specifically says, "used without permission, for 'fair use' only"). Therefore, Zmaj is correct: this image falls under WP:FU#Counterexamples item 8, which not proper fair use of this image. I have no opinion on Croatia and the decision to delete this image is not based on the content of the image -- this is purely a licensing issue from my perspective. I am going to start the deletion process on Commons as well. howcheng {chat} 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wrong on several points. First, the image in ex-yu-press is another image from the same event, not the same image. Second, the fair use was claimed there for the whole article, which was taken from novi list. Novi list, in all probability, holds copyright for that image (if it is copyrighted) as they had reporters there. So, that is a DIFFERENT image. The one on index page is claimed by index [3]. Maayaa 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The very bad thing is to have a narrow-minded person for an administrator. An image is copyrighted unless ... is utter nonsense. Claiming that source is not known just because it is not stated who actually shot a picture - is another nonsense. But - we cannot expect more - Wikipedia eihter has no clear editorial policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.9.39 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC).
- Sorry, but you're wrong. Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are official policy. There are no ways around this. Copyright violations are a very sensitive matter for the Wikimedia Foundation. If we cannot be 100% sure about the copyright situation of this image, we can't use it (except under limited circumstances, none of which apply here). howcheng {chat} 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Which limited circumstances do not apply. Fair use applies. And also, you are wrong about index portal. It DOES claim rigt to the image. Maayaa 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. These are the conditions under which fair use material may be used. At the very end, it says, "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above." Yes, any picture of people/kids dressed in these uniforms will have exactly the same effect and it's possible that you could take such a picture yourself. It's not a historical event that cannot be duplicated, it's not a picture of something that no one else could possibly take or create. For fair use to apply, there has to be a reason why it must be this specific picture and not any other. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The photo which is fake (staged) is not the same thing as the photo which is original. It is exactly what my point was - there is no image that illustrates indoctrination of Croatian children available as free replacement. This photo, taken in Bleiburg, illustrates that point, and there is no free replacement. Also, the image is apparently not copyrighted (the laws in the Balkans are different from US laws). Let me make this analogy: suppose there were only a few pictures available of hijacked planes crushing into WTC (in fact, there is more material, but suppose there were none available freely). Then, if there were no free alternatives, the pictures would be fair use. Staging/photo montaging a plain crushing into the building just does not have the same effect, because it is fake. So, in order for the pic to have same effect, there have to be Croatian children in nazi uniforms, dressed by their parents for the occasion. While no doubt there are many instances of indoctrination (which takes many forms, inducing hate against Serbs in Croatian population has a long long tradition, many decades since the work of Ante Starcevic, Mile Budak etc.) they are not acessible that easily, as you can see, many Croats try to downplay and hide these aspects of their country. As it seems from the article in Novi list, the images were even considered scandalalous in Croatia in some liberal circles (Novi list is based in Rijeka, and this part of Croatia, Istria, has relatively tolerant and non-nationalistic attitude, since, after all, Istria was not part of NDH and there are still some Italians and other nationalities there - Istria has a strong movement for autonomy against official Zagreb). You could compare these images to the images of soldiers from Serbian Krajina unit Skorpions executing muslims in Srebrenica in 1995, that appeared in 2005. They were private images and were published with no consent, soldiers involved were promptly jailed in Serbia and Croatia where they lived, but their use is a fair use since they are used in accordance with US law (which is much more allowing than wiki rules, keep that in mind); the source that gave the pictures, presumably not his/hers, is moreover completely inacessible since it is a secret who gave this to Natasa Kandic and such, and there is no other replacement available (though no doubt there were many other killings in Srebrenica region and probably some other photos, but they just arent available as a free replacement). Would you delete those images and argue that this can be replaced by staging similar photos? Similarly, you cant stage indoctrination of children, cant stage the pictures of celebrations of Hitler birthday in Austria etc. If there were no alternatives, an illustration of mass of people celebrating Hitler birthday in Austria, which was a schocker in Austria (though noone is shocked in Austria by such images, while in Serbia and Croatia images like that WERE shocking at least to some in the population - to those Croats (minority in reality, but which was shocked, as Novi List shows) that still consider Ustashe criminal, rather than "national heros" that nationalists openly claim to a nod of the silent majority that prevents return of Serbian refugees) would be a fair use. To sum up: 1. there are no available free photos (if index refuses to grant permission) illustrating the same thing - children in ustasha uniforms dressed for celebration of ustashe movement and portraying them as victims in Bleiburg 2. this evidence of Croat children from Bleiburg in Ustasha uniforms were shocking in Croatia when they appeared to those Croats that are still aware what Ustashe did, though majority probably are so whitewashed in Croatia that they probably consider this normal (like frogs that boil alive not noticing the increasing heat). To give you more perspective about fair use in Croatia, there was another scandal involving Severina, the Croatian most popular female singer and turbo-folk and pop star. The porn movie that she privately shot as a memory to her affair with a married man from Bosnia and Herzegovina appeared on Internet and was a huge hit in Croatia, and Severina sued publisher of a few screenshots from the movie for copyvio - she lost the trial. Moreover, the suit was rejected not on the basis of FAIR USE, but on the basis that her porn is not an original work that would be protected by copyrights. This is really crucial here - her amateur porn tape was considered too trivial a work to be protected. She was forced to argue, much to her embarrasment and joy of Croatian public, weather there is some substantial novelity etc in her "work" to qualify it as nontrivial. Then the suit was rejected. An amateur photo of the event is therefore not only fair use, but apparently too trivial to be even considered for copyright in Croatia (so we could use the tag non-eligible for copyright, since it is true, at least in Croatia). Maayaa 00:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- To add to my argument above: A photograph which DOES have some artistic value etc. would certainly be considered non-trivial. For instance, a photo of some very special moment, that needs artistic bent to catch, etc. - it is certainly eligible for copyright, probably even in Croatia. However, photographing people on the events only takes an idiot camera and a person to photograph people who are there -that qualifies it as trivial; any amateur COULD have taken such a photo (yet unfortunately we cant find such a free replacement, any more so than photos of KKK gatherings are available, indeed much less so, and even KKK members are probably reluctant to upload their photos in KKK uniforms). The fact that it is not a moment that is catched (like plains crushing in the WTC) but the mere presence, would very likely make this work trivial, and also photos many other photos, according to Croatian law at least. In Balkan states like Croatia, copyrights obviously work somehow differently, as in US Severina's amateur porno tape would be elligible for copyright, as cases of some other celebrity tapes of that sort showed. In countries where copyrights are taken seriously so is the licencing and sourcing, and it is easier to deal with this issues. In Croatia however, one might face difficulties trying to impose standards that hold in US, and it is an undue burden to ask for a copyrighted image with proof of copyright where no copyright law covering such a picture exists in the region picture originates from. Maayaa 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The photo which is fake (staged) is not the same thing as the photo which is original. It is exactly what my point was - there is no image that illustrates indoctrination of Croatian children available as free replacement. This photo, taken in Bleiburg, illustrates that point, and there is no free replacement. Also, the image is apparently not copyrighted (the laws in the Balkans are different from US laws). Let me make this analogy: suppose there were only a few pictures available of hijacked planes crushing into WTC (in fact, there is more material, but suppose there were none available freely). Then, if there were no free alternatives, the pictures would be fair use. Staging/photo montaging a plain crushing into the building just does not have the same effect, because it is fake. So, in order for the pic to have same effect, there have to be Croatian children in nazi uniforms, dressed by their parents for the occasion. While no doubt there are many instances of indoctrination (which takes many forms, inducing hate against Serbs in Croatian population has a long long tradition, many decades since the work of Ante Starcevic, Mile Budak etc.) they are not acessible that easily, as you can see, many Croats try to downplay and hide these aspects of their country. As it seems from the article in Novi list, the images were even considered scandalalous in Croatia in some liberal circles (Novi list is based in Rijeka, and this part of Croatia, Istria, has relatively tolerant and non-nationalistic attitude, since, after all, Istria was not part of NDH and there are still some Italians and other nationalities there - Istria has a strong movement for autonomy against official Zagreb). You could compare these images to the images of soldiers from Serbian Krajina unit Skorpions executing muslims in Srebrenica in 1995, that appeared in 2005. They were private images and were published with no consent, soldiers involved were promptly jailed in Serbia and Croatia where they lived, but their use is a fair use since they are used in accordance with US law (which is much more allowing than wiki rules, keep that in mind); the source that gave the pictures, presumably not his/hers, is moreover completely inacessible since it is a secret who gave this to Natasa Kandic and such, and there is no other replacement available (though no doubt there were many other killings in Srebrenica region and probably some other photos, but they just arent available as a free replacement). Would you delete those images and argue that this can be replaced by staging similar photos? Similarly, you cant stage indoctrination of children, cant stage the pictures of celebrations of Hitler birthday in Austria etc. If there were no alternatives, an illustration of mass of people celebrating Hitler birthday in Austria, which was a schocker in Austria (though noone is shocked in Austria by such images, while in Serbia and Croatia images like that WERE shocking at least to some in the population - to those Croats (minority in reality, but which was shocked, as Novi List shows) that still consider Ustashe criminal, rather than "national heros" that nationalists openly claim to a nod of the silent majority that prevents return of Serbian refugees) would be a fair use. To sum up: 1. there are no available free photos (if index refuses to grant permission) illustrating the same thing - children in ustasha uniforms dressed for celebration of ustashe movement and portraying them as victims in Bleiburg 2. this evidence of Croat children from Bleiburg in Ustasha uniforms were shocking in Croatia when they appeared to those Croats that are still aware what Ustashe did, though majority probably are so whitewashed in Croatia that they probably consider this normal (like frogs that boil alive not noticing the increasing heat). To give you more perspective about fair use in Croatia, there was another scandal involving Severina, the Croatian most popular female singer and turbo-folk and pop star. The porn movie that she privately shot as a memory to her affair with a married man from Bosnia and Herzegovina appeared on Internet and was a huge hit in Croatia, and Severina sued publisher of a few screenshots from the movie for copyvio - she lost the trial. Moreover, the suit was rejected not on the basis of FAIR USE, but on the basis that her porn is not an original work that would be protected by copyrights. This is really crucial here - her amateur porn tape was considered too trivial a work to be protected. She was forced to argue, much to her embarrasment and joy of Croatian public, weather there is some substantial novelity etc in her "work" to qualify it as nontrivial. Then the suit was rejected. An amateur photo of the event is therefore not only fair use, but apparently too trivial to be even considered for copyright in Croatia (so we could use the tag non-eligible for copyright, since it is true, at least in Croatia). Maayaa 00:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. These are the conditions under which fair use material may be used. At the very end, it says, "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above." Yes, any picture of people/kids dressed in these uniforms will have exactly the same effect and it's possible that you could take such a picture yourself. It's not a historical event that cannot be duplicated, it's not a picture of something that no one else could possibly take or create. For fair use to apply, there has to be a reason why it must be this specific picture and not any other. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which limited circumstances do not apply. Fair use applies. And also, you are wrong about index portal. It DOES claim rigt to the image. Maayaa 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but you're wrong. Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are official policy. There are no ways around this. Copyright violations are a very sensitive matter for the Wikimedia Foundation. If we cannot be 100% sure about the copyright situation of this image, we can't use it (except under limited circumstances, none of which apply here). howcheng {chat} 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, my poor friend - if nobody claims a copyright, then the picture is a fair game. About Wikipedia editorial policy - it is not about the rules of that policy - it is about interpretation of these rules. Your claims about the source and the 'copyright unless ...' cannot be derived from the rules and are nonsenses - like it or not! To prove your (im)partiality - no need to claim 'I have no opinion on Croatia ...'. www.novilist.hr has the same group of people photographed from a different angle which is a derived proof of this picture originality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.93.139 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- Again, you're wrong. If nobody claims a copyright, we cannot assume it's public domain. You can rant on and on about this, but it doesn't change the facts. You can ask any administrator here (go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard). howcheng {chat}
- Well, my poor friend - if nobody claims a copyright, then the picture is a fair game. About Wikipedia editorial policy - it is not about the rules of that policy - it is about interpretation of these rules. Your claims about the source and the 'copyright unless ...' cannot be derived from the rules and are nonsenses - like it or not! To prove your (im)partiality - no need to claim 'I have no opinion on Croatia ...'. www.novilist.hr has the same group of people photographed from a different angle which is a derived proof of this picture originality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.93.139 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
- I just want to warn you that you are an administrator and not an ultimate judge. Your knowledge about copyright is too weak to be taken into account--4.249.90.111 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't care anything about the content of the image -- whether the depiction is accurate or whether it shows neo-Nazism or indoctrination or whatever -- I'm only talking about the usage and licensing of the image and unfortunately, it's not usable in Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
