Image talk:Body everywhere.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copyright Laws of China 1.1 Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China 1.2 Copyright Law of the Republic of China 2 Verifiability of image / fair use of image (cut from WP:PUI) 2.1 Fair use?

[edit] Copyright Laws of China

[edit] Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China

(1) Even photographic works don't enter the public doman fifty years after they were created but fifty years after they were first published.

(2) Place of creation has nothing to do with the term of protecting copyright even in the new/old Chinese copyright laws.

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China 2001
Section 3 Term of Protection for rights
Article 21
...
The term of protection for the right of publication or protection for the right of publication or the rights referred to in Article l0, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a cinematographic work, a work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production or a photographic work shall be fifty years, and expires on 3l December of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such work, provided that any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law.
Source:New Copyright Law & Old Copyright Law of the PRC

[edit] Copyright Law of the Republic of China

Photographic works don't enter the public doman fifty years after they were created but fifty years after they were published.

Copyright Law of the Republic of China 1998
Article 34 Economic rights for photographic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, computer programs and performances endure for fifty years after the public release of the work.
Source:New Copyright Law of the PRC

--Watanabe Hisashi 05:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? --Vsion 00:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability of image / fair use of image (cut from WP:PUI)

• Image:Body everywhere.jpg. Speedied once. Undeleted without any reason given. From the image description page: This image is from People Diary [1]. According to the information on the link, the picture is still in copyright. However the link provided gives no information on the copyright, nor is there any justification on the image link or the wikipedia page for the image as to why it is fair use (according to the tag used). It is being used to try to depict events of the Nanking Massacre, yet there is no evidence that it is what the captions says it is. Kimchi.sg 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Read your own talkpage. When there is a POV dispute about an image, an editor is not supposed to add {{unknown}} (with date set to more than 7 days ago) to make an unsuspecting admin delete the image without a second glance, like you did. Read the page history and talk page, first. -- Миборовский 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of that indicates why this picture is fair use. John Smith's 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the real (non-website) source of this image? When was it created? Where was it first published? If it is unfreely copyrighted, how does it meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? Accusations of bad faith aren't helpful in general, and certainly don't tell us what we need to know here in order to republish images. Jkelly 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ISBN 0-9632231-5-1 -- Миборовский

What does that book list as the source? I think that's rather what Jkelly was talking about. John Smith's 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture's entry already lists a secondary source (another book), so the ISBN listing doesn't add anything. What we need is original source information. John Smith's 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At least 2 published books as sources for verifying the authenticity is good enough for me. The description says: This image is from Murase Moriyasu,"Watasino Jyugun Cyuugoku-sensen"(私の従軍中国戦線) p.46, which was photographed by Murase Moriyasu himself and first released in 1987. So there you have it, the original source information. It is also included on numerous works about the Nanking Massacre, and was used as a main piece of evidence for the Nanking Massacre. Seriously, what else do you want? -- Миборовский 04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about when and where it took place? It's being used to represent the Nank[j]ing Massacre, yet there is no evidence as to what it actually is. Given it has a fair use tag (as it is still in copyright according to the tag), we have to be certain what it is depicting. John Smith's 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

These websites certainly have issues with the use of the picture to denote events of the Nanking massacre. [2][3] John Smith's 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... you found your holy grail. So what? What do these websites amount to? Nothing. They have no sources. They don't even pass the slackest standards you try to impose on sources. But you are sooooo sure they are correct, aren't you? But I'm not. I want incontrovertible proof that these websites are absolutely correct. This photo was taken by Moriyasu at Xiaguan District (下关区), so present proof that they are not, if you want to delete this photo. -- Миборовский 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You provided a source, as did I. If you want me to prove they're absolutely correct, I want you to prove your sources are absolutely correct. See, it works both ways. John Smith's 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I provided book sources, all you gave was some internet links to dubious but obviously Japanese revisionist web pages. I can do the same, but probably give 10 times as many links. But I didn't. I gave book sources. Can you? -- Миборовский 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobukatsu's page is directly translated from his book "Za Reipu obu Nankin no Kenkyu". And just because someone has a strong POV doesn't mean that nothing they say is valid. It's not as if those that say all the pictures are valid don't have their own POV to push. John Smith's 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So what does HE give as HIS sources for HIS claims? Eh? I'm tired of this. Some say these images are authentic. Some say these images are faked. Both sides have their own list of evidence. Both sides discredit the other. What's POV here is to take either side's views entirely, like you are doing by trying to delete these images based on a single chapter in a Japanese book. I have included the Japanese revisionists' claims that these images are fake. Happy now? I have taken the first step. Will you? -- Миборовский 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we have definitively determined that this is an unfree image. Does any party object to my moving this dicussion to Image talk:Body everywhere.jpg? Jkelly 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to that. John Smith's 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's copyrighted, but should still qualify for fair use, so no. -- Миборовский 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use?

We know that the image is copyrighted and not released under a freely-reusable licemse. Miborovsky has suggested that we can nevertheless republish this image, as it qualifies for Wikipedia:Fair use. At first glance, it appears to me that this very image has been discussed in a variety of sources and is inherently controversial; this suggests that it is not replacable by any other image if it is used in Wikipedia to discuss claims and counter-claims of its authenticity in the context of larger discussions about the incident it depicts, thereby meeting WP:FUC #1. I suggest we take the time to examine the other Wikipedia:Fair use criteria to make sure that it qualifies for all of them. Jkelly 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't see how it can be fair use. The point of fair use is that it is used only when there isn't another free image that could have the same effect.

This image could be replaced by a different one. The image doesn't depict a particular massacre. It is simply a heap of corpses on the river. It is claimed to be a part of the Nanjing Massacres. This is not easily verifiable - I pointed out some sources that said they thought the casualties were soldiers. But even if we say they are civilians, there are other pictures in the public domain that do show events of the Nanjing Massacres. So there is no need for this picture and thus it cannot be fair use. John Smith's 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This photo was cited as evidence of the massacre by many books and also refuted as such by other books. Therefore it is inherently notable and non-replaceable. I think it meets all fair use criteria listed, though #10 might need some touchup. -- Миборовский 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I take this point, and we do need to be very conservative about "fair use" claims. Fair use is about use, even though our organisation system leads people to believe it is somthing inherent to the media in question. Any unfree image used as a simple depiction of something that can be replaced by free content fails Wikipedia:Fair use. We need to distinguish between that kind of use and use in which this image would be irreplacable. Jkelly 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An example of a picture that could be fair use would the ditch photo, although like Kelly I think it needs to be renamed so that it can be used without confusion. That is because it shows a notable event that has also been verified by the journal I supplied. Lots of people have heard of the "thousand corpse ditch".

This photo in question has no such equivalent importance attached to it, other than it shows dead Chinese people during the war. John Smith's 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "equivalent importance" is that this very photo has been used as evidence of the massacre in no less than 3 published works (Moriyasu, Young, Chang) and regardless of whether it actually shows dead Chinese civilians, it is irreplaceably and irreversibly a part of the Nanking Massacre historiography and its surrounding controversy. -- Миборовский 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if it has been used in those books? It doesn't mean there isn't an alternative to be used. It shows dead corpses, as do many other photos. I don't agree that it is that vital, certainly not to provide the kind of general understanding wikipedia tries to impart. If the photographs were that important, they would have to be individually discussed in the article in great detail. If all they get is a small caption then they cannot be that crucial, can they? John Smith's 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You certainly know how to trivialise things. It shows corpses that many believe to be of Chinese civilians, and as such was used as evidence of the massacre, while others believe the corpses were Chinese soldiers. People (like your Fujioka Nobukatsu) have written entire pages in their books just to refute the authenticity of this photograph. Newspapers have printed stories (titled something like "New Evidence of the Nanking Massacre!") just based on this photo.

It's absolutely ludicrous to claim something is not important just because "it's too short". Have you considered style and format? If not, read WP:MOS and find out that pages-long captions (like the Timperley telegraph) aren't good. It is entirely possible to write several paragraphs of information on this and other images, in fact, I may plan to do so, once this silliness is over with. -- Миборовский 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Trivialise"? I'm saying that the picture itself can be replaced. Yes, it shows dead people. But so do many other pictures. Lots of photographs are disputed. If there were one or two disputed pictures, you might have a point. But given that so many are, you can't say the debate alone makes it special, nor the fact it is used. The content of the picture is the important thing. It shows casualties of war (whether military or civlian), as do many other pictures that are in the public domain now.

Somehow I doubt that there will be a proper section on photographic evidence in the article. People have asked questions about the photographic evidence many times and each time they're shouted down or ignored. And given your current obsession in labelling critical sources as revisionists and using POV words, I am quite sure any such section written by you would result in the criticism being trivialised.

"Silliness"? Oh, yes, it's silly to try to use historical sources correctly when one can throw some nice pictures in to make an article look better.

I never said we had to have a massive caption on it. But as I said, if it was that important then it would have been greatly discussed by now. It hasn't, so quite clearly it is basically just another picture showing war dead/war crimes. John Smith's 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So the photo can be replaced? With what? If you can produce a photo which can "replace" this one...

What is "using historical sources correctly"? Ignoring every piece of affirmative source while treating any refutation as the unholy grail?

Oh but the picture HAS been greatly discussed by now. What was Fujioka Nobukatsu smoking when he devoted several pages of his book to refute this photograph? What was Iris Chang smoking when she included this photograph in her book? What have we been doing, eh? Pray tell? Wasting time? It's beginning to turn into one huge waste of time, definitely. If you want all photos deleted, come out and say it.

-- Миборовский 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be replaced by another other picture, showing war crimes from the area, that is in the public domain. The ditch already serves a purpose in showing war crimes from at least the province, if not the city itself. As does the "Slayers" picture. You don't need to put another picture in to replace it, merely ensure there is content available that can do the same job.

Using historical sources correctly is when one uses caution, rather than throwing things in. Photography is not nearly as clear-cut as many people think in terms of what it shows.

No, discussed in the article. I never said it hadn't been discussed outside wikipedia, I said that if it was so crucial to the Nanking article here it would have been discussed in detail. And as I pointed out, many of the photographs have been discussed. But that doesn't mean they're all vital to put in an article.

I don't want all photographs in relation to the subject deleted. Both the ditch and slayers pics have a use, as do others. I have questioned the validity of some others though. John Smith's 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should the ditch photo be used when it supposedly does not depict war crime in Nanking, but Xuzhou? If the only photo used in the article is one that supposedly does NOT depict a war crime in Nanking, this sends a message to readers that there are no such photos, when there are. The "slayers" image is not a photgraphic evidence, only a newspaper clipping. It does not deliver the same information.

I think we have already spent too much time energy discussing this very photo, won't you agree? In addition, Wikipedia has a thing called systematic bias that prevents various topics from getting the attention it deserves on Wikipedia. You cannot use the current incarnation of Wikipedia as a yardstick to measure what is notable and what is not. -- Миборовский 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want the ditch photo to be in the Nanking article, then that means you believe it is part of the massacres. And the slayers picture depicts a photograph - it doesn't matter if it comes from a newspaper clipping. We have spent a lot of time discussing this photograph, but we still need to decide whether it is fair use or not. John Smith's 11:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)