Image talk:Reagan-digitised-poster PNG.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unethical editing.

Would unidentified user User:68.209.210.160 please explain the reasons for removal of accreditations in their edit dated 03 July 2006 at 20.32 (UTC).

No one likes to see their hard work vandalised or accreditation removed. It seems to me to be unethical to put it v.mildly. The original artist and the original Finnish publisher/printer deserve recognition for their work. To remove their accreditation is theft of their art. If that unethical practice is accepted without protest we can expect the work of Reubens, Constable, Titian, Michaelangelo to be stolen from them also. The person who by hard work and diligence was able to digitise the very large original into a form suitable for uploading also deserves to have his work recognised as his. That is the usual accepted convention for work of an artistic nature. If Wikipedia editors have a different view then it would be helpful if a concisely argued rational explanation of that view could be seen by everyone. We can then form our own judgement about whether we wish to continue to be associated with such ideas or people.

Normally, people form judgments about the work of others based in part upon whether that person has the self-confidence to sign his/her work with their real name, although it is recognised that there are circumstances where a pseudonym might be wise. That aside, my usual practice is to regard anyone unwilling to identify themselves by name, in the traditional way as 'anonymous' and make a judgment accordingly. Brian.Burnell 12:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness

I understand this is included in the Reagan criticism section, but this makes some extreme accusations against Reagan. Is this really appropriate? --72.197.101.11 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed included in the Reagan biog by another contributor, and I believe it to be entirely appropriate, given the widely differing views of President Reagan, not just in the US, but also here in the UK and everywhere else in the world. When a person stands for elected office (and I believe Reagan was one of the better examples) he/she has to accept that in the cut-and thrust of politics they will be subject to criticism as well as praise. All they have a right to expect is that criticism will be fair, and directed at them and them alone, ie not their family. That civilised convention has not always been adhered to with Reagan's successors. But there is a further useful test that should be applied in the case of a cartoon; and that test is this: would Reagan himself be likely to laugh at it? I believe the answer to that question is emphatically YES. Because Ronald Reagan was one of those very rare politicians who could laugh at themselves, and could relate to what the ordinary Joe Public would laugh at. Although there are differences in how humor is percieved in different countries, here in the UK, where the cartoon was uploaded, most of the people who would chuckle at this cartoon are the very same people who would regard Ronald Reagan as probably the greatest post-WW2 American president. If you therefore believe that this cartoon is maliciously critical of him, then there must be something seriously adrift with your judgement, although humor is of course a matter of personal taste. Some you laugh at, some you think distasteful. I don't believe this cartoon is distasteful, given the above reasons, but thats my taste kicking in. That's the great defect of freedom of thought, - we all have thoughts that are different. Brian.Burnell 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

This artwork is a colorized plagiarism of a black & white American political cartoon published in 1984, by David Horsey -- who at that time was Editorial Cartoonist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, in Seattle, Washington. The plagerizer may have seen the cartoon in a different context because it was also published at the back cover art for the comic compelation "ReaganComics" in 1984 by Carew Papritz and Russ Tremayne, Khyber Press.

This assertion of plagiarism (by an anonymous accuser) is not supported by any evidence provided by this contributor. It is a very serious allegation to make of anyone, especially when no supporting evidence is provided. All the evidence available from the original print in my possession is that the copyright (to the original print) is that of the Finnish printer/publisher. The digitised version also differs from the Finnish print, nor has the digitiser claimed copyright status for his very considerable artistic endeavours. Having not claimed ownership of the design, how can there be plagiarism? The accuser assumes bad faith where there is none, or without carefully reading the small print. See the David Horsey Talk page for a fuller account of this cartoon's origins. The accusation of plagiarism should be withdrawn unreservedly or substantiated with evidence. Remember Wikipedia's insistance on verifiability. Brian.Burnell 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would consider to be evidence of plagarism. We obviously can't post the proof (ie, the orginal cartoon by Horsey) without permission, as that in itself would be a copyright infringement. However a google search for reaganposter.jpg will quickly get you to an image of the original cartoon. The uploaded PNG file is virtually identical to the orignal Horsey cartoon. Nearly every word has been copied, with a only few minor additions (Grenada, Lake of our Tribes) and only two textual deletion (One being in Canada, the other being the copyright notification by Horsey). The shape of the maps are identical; even the shape of the "R"s in Ronald Reagan has been duplicated. The assertion that neither you, nor Finreklama Oy, from whom you copied your version, has claimed ownership of the design, in no way changes the fact that the Finreklama Oy version is a blatant plagarism of David Horsey's original work. Yes, plagarism is a very serious accusation. In this case, it fits.

No it does not fit. If Americans want to self-elect themselves as the world's policemen, then its incumbent upon them to do their research first before making vile allegations. Look carefully at the bottom righthand corner of this photograph

This printed poster with the imprint of the Finnish printer/publisher Finnreklama Oy, is in the possession of the photographer, and was photographed pinned to his study wall. The poster also carries on the reverse, the imprint of a UK retailer, The British Peace Assembly, an anti-nuclear weapons campaigning group, probably a pro-Soviet mouthpiece, of which little is known. It is quite possible that the Finnish publisher, Finnreklama Oy, was at that time, also an outlet for Soviet propaganda. At the present time it seems to do considerable business with Russia, and its website is in the Russian language. If it was a Soviet "front", that would no doubt explain why their poster omitted some negative aspects (from Soviet eyes) of the Horsey poster. An example would be the Cuban dagger pointed at America's lions. In that Cold War era, Soviet law on copyright (if there was any) was rather less stringent than in the West. Many Western publications, movies, etc, received the same treatment. But that is now history. What has to be resisted now, are misguided efforts to re-write history and turn back the clock. The fact is, like it or not, that Finnreklama Oy published this version of the cartoon. It exists. And because it exists, others are entitled to refer to it and use it to illustrate their ideas. Any constraint on using it legitimately to illustrate ideas is a constraint on freedom of expression worthy of the former Soviet Union itself.

of the original print in my possession. The imprint of Finnreklama Oy is clearly visible. The photograph was taken by me and is my copyright. The digitised version was made from a similar photograph to this by a process of cleaning up and brightening colours (which were not a feature of Horsey's original). Although I could legitimately claim some control of the product of my photograph, I have never done so, being always careful to accredit the imprint of Finnreklama Oy, a reputable Finnish publishing house. But I guess with them not being American, their reputation counts as zilch. Also, if you can bring yourself to comprehend what has already appeared on these pages, it has been stated more than once that if there was evidence of this being Horsey's work, there could be no possible objection to him being properly accredited. It no part of my duty to seek out that evidence. You are the accuser, and the burden of proof lies with you. But I guess that the mentality of the lynch mob dies hard in America. Furthermore ... as I understand it, cartoonists frequently license publishing houses to print their work. No doubt you "forgot" to check with either Horsey or Finnreklama Oy whether this was the case here. It may be the case that Finnreklama was licensed by Horsey.

This is an English version of Wikipedia, not an outpost of the Imperial American Cultural Empire. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue assuming good faith, where a blatant political agenda is easily discernable, with some questioning whether the cartoon itself is an "appropriate" illustration of the Reagan biog page. And to forestall your obvious question, I didn't place it there. It was not uploaded for that purpose. Some of us have more useful things to do. 81.132.242.136 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Belatedly, I notice that your accusations were unsigned. How appropriate. An anonymous letter accusing others. 81.132.242.136 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wronglicense tag

This was on my talk page, but it may be more useful here.

"You don't think" the use of this poster to fairly illustrate a form of satire (on the Satire main page, I point out) constitutes fair use. Or did you mean to say "You don't believe".

If that is what you meant, then that's what you should have said, to describe what is after all just your opinion, one opinion amongst many opinions; and no more worthy an opinion than anyone else's opinion. That's the great defect of freedom of thought; we all have thoughts that are different.

Coming to the substantive issue though. If you believe that the use on the satire page is not a fair use of a satirical cartoon, just where would you ever consider it as fair use? And what PRECISELY were your reasons for your belief. The reasons that you "forgot" to state when inserting comments on the Image page. There is a Talk page for you to pose your thoughts and seek concensus first. But you "forgot" to do that too. 81.132.242.136 12:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The case seems very simple. There is a fair use rationale. I don't think (my opinion) that the use of the image in satire matches the fair use rationale given for the image. I have no view on whether a different rationale might be valid, that is not the issue. I added {{wronglicense}} to invite an expert view on this; it is not a deletion request, and this is the function of that tag. I don't think it is correct to remove the tag without this expert view. It is disappointing nobody has offered it, but let's give it time. Notinasnaid 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: however, having read over the tag descriptions again, I think {{fairusereview}} is more appropriate, and I will change to use that. Notinasnaid 13:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, and I certainly don't want a falling out over this. I find this image immensely funny, and I believe that Reagan would do too. He was one of the few politicians to be able to laugh at himself. A rare quality. However, apart from licensing issues, there has been many other problems, mainly from people who's belief in freedom of expression should not extend to those who hold different views from themselves, and it can be very tiresome. So apologies for allowing my hackles to be hacked off so quickly.

I'm minded to adopt a different approach here that will help reduce the volume of dissent. I still possess the original poster. I photographed it and the photo remains my copyright. The digitised version was then produced by manually processing the JPG format to produce a sharper, brighter image. I can legitimately claim this photo image as my copyright, and license it accordingly. That should resolve these issues without further ado. The image was uploaded to Wiki originally in jpg format. A colleague, Ian Dunster then processed it further, converting it to PNG to sharpen it further and reduce the size. I await your comments before asserting my claim to the copyright and adjusting the license tag. Brian.Burnell 13:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of a copy of an original stays with the creator. Taking a photograph of it does not remove any aspect of the original copyright. It may (or may not, see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) obtain additional copyright, so your copyright (or not) on the photo isn't really the issue here. Unless (I misunderstand) you are the artist. Notinasnaid 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The User:81.156.90.133 has tried (and will again, i suppose) to put the picture back into Satire, where I have hidden it until this is solved. So, taking a picture of a picture still makes it being protected by copyright, now that this is digitzed, and in a way copied from another picture, if the writing would be changed (Arial, somehting simple) wouldn't it be an interpretation, just like when i quote a book and sing someone's lyrics with some changes - that usually is enough in business! So, grab a pencil and delete both copyvios, i say ;-) --Flammingo^Parliament 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also requested a fair use review, as the fair use rationale given doesn't seem to match its use. If anyone ever arrives to do the review, please proceed as if it is the article, e.g. as in [1]. Notinasnaid 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So we put it back into the article? With a note, or none? (Innocent (used in Satire) until priven guilty (and removed)?)--Flammingo^Parliament 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a view on whether it should be removed in the meantime or left; but the situation must be short term, since orphaned fair use images must be deleted. Notinasnaid 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i had a good laugh with that picture, but there are millions of pre-20th century satirical pictures that i don't think we need risking anything. It's not important enough to risk that.--Flammingo^Parliament 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG_0295.jpg and this image don't seem to be Fair Use (Deletion)

The pictures start being copied by other pages thinking wikipedia takes the responsibility of Free Use; I now added sources for both the copyright of the David Horsey picture ([2] and even a coloured version by finnreklama (their page finnreklama.fi is finnish and russian and does not refer to the picture, but this page [3] has exactly the same image (ie. no substantial change) and gives us right to use it on this condition:

"The materials on this Web site are made available for use without permission only for limited non-commercial personal or educational use, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws. Users must cite the author / artist and source of these materials as they would material from any printed or other work, and the citation should include the URL www.politicalgraphics.org in addition to all copyright and other proprietary notices contained on the materials."

I, for one, don't want to do that with Satire and disagree that Ronald Reagan should have more than a link to the latter page. Both Finnreklama and David Horsey might thus be trouble. Delete (9 December). (Sorry Brian for the efforts, really, but the link to both pages will have to be all we may do) --Flammingo^Parliament 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian Burnell writes:

This is my last word on this topic. No further correspondence will be acknowledged.

So an editor has finally noticed (and I'm not being sarcastic) that the Finnreklama Oy website is written in Finnish and RUSSIAN. Probably because much of the business of this old-established printer/publisher is with the Russian Federation, and during the Cold War was with the former Soviet Union. There are good grounds for believing that this company was then no more than a Soviet "front" for the dissemination of Soviet propaganda to the West. If that were so, then it seems likely that aspects of the original Horsey cartoon that were critical of the USSR would be sanitized from a Soviet (ie Finnreklama) copy. Behold, and hey presto! The "Cuban Dagger" and Nicaraguan references, and possibly others, were expunged from this Soviet copy.

We cannot rewrite history. We know that at that time the USSR had scant regard for Western notions about copyright. They published all manner of items without either acknowledging the original author or paying them a dime in royalties. But that is history and we cannot change it. All we can do is acknowledge that Horsey's original was used by the USSR for its own purposes, and as with so much of the detritus and mementos of the Cold War, it exists. I'm told by a dealer in London that a market exists for such items,[4] including this poster. My copy is apparently worth something after all! I may well sell it. Because it exists, and in this sense, it is no different than a singer's cover version of another singer's original. If that were prohibited as plagiarism, then the music industry would grind to a standstill. And for those who do consider the Finnreklama Oy (Soviet) version to be plagiarised, the solution is quite simple really. Direct their accusations to the Finns and the Russians. It would take REAL guts and committment to do that, and that resolution doesn't seem very evident here.

And a fat lot of notice the Russians and Finns will take!

There may well be no place for it on the Satire page, or on any other. No matter, there are other websites where Wikipedia editors cannot suppress it, and it should now be apparent to all but the most dimwitted, that in the wider world outside of Wikipedia, there is an interest in this small part of Cold War history, and that it cannot be suppressed. Nor can editors isolate Wikipedia indefinitely from the outside world, inside a sanitised cocoon. So all the nitpicking (as I regard it) will acheive, is to earn the contempt of the wider world. But from recent history I note that to be a path well-trodden by Americans. It's becoming clear to me now why that species are so hated and despised. From this day forth, never let it be said that I knowingly did an American a good deed. Brian.Burnell 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)