Image talk:Master Li high from falundafa org.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is actually no indication that this is free for any purpose with only attribution. It is a copyrighted image which is provided gratis for people to download and print. That is not the same as "free to redistribute, modify, and use commercially for any purpose". Thus this is actually being used here as "fair use", however, because Li Hongzhi is alive, it is replacable fair use and so violates Wikipedia:Fair use: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". A free equivalent could be created. — coelacan — 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this image is easily replaceable because, since all images with Mr. Li Hongzhi are from Minghui/ClearWisdom sites which will then fall under the gratis license category you mentioned. To go in and take a picture with his approval, would be hard (at least for me). Could you perhaps point out in this case where should we go and get some pictures which will be OK to use on Wikipedia?
- Also based on this I have a request. Until there is no other picture of him which has the GFDL license, can we keep this one? After all it's Gratis, so wikipedia will surely not be sued over keeping it. --HappyInGeneral 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- We do not know if the copyright holder wants to allow this kind of use, so we have to err on the safe side and act within the law. The fact that they make the image available for people to download for free does not mean they allow others to make the image available. This is still a violation of their copyright until they provide permission otherwise. See Special:Upload, where it says: "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." That is all that has been done here, an image on a website was uploaded without any free licensing. It is a common misconception that a gratis image means "public domain", but it does not, and we are still in violation of copyright law. I'm afraid we cannot make an exception for this, except as the United States fair use laws allow, as outlined at Wikipedia:Fair use. In this case, since Mr. Li is a living person, it is possible to make a freely licensed image of him, so fair use does not apply. As to how you may get a freely-licensed image of him, there are many options. Someone who lives near him may take a picture of him when he is out in public, entering or exiting a Falun Gong building, or giving a public lecture (I understand he has appeared at universities in the past, this would be an opportune time). You actually do not need his permission if he is in a public place, under US law in most states. I do not know what city he is in, but if there are no Wikipedia editors on this page who live near him, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Also, if anyone who is "high up" in the Falun Gong organization reads this and talks to him, then he may be persuaded to sit for a portrait photograph that would then be released under a GFDL-compatible license. — coelacan — 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The Japanese wikipedia article on Li has the same image from the same place and has it marked as released into the Public Domain. --EarthPerson 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no justification provided on the Japanese page for the claim of Public Domain. It appears to be a copyright violation there as well. I have informed an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia of this issue and I expect the image will be deleted there as well. — coelacan — 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1. Gratis it self means that it can be shown, it might not be changed or sold, but it certainly can be shown, no reason to fear lawsuits because of this. The only reason to delete it, is to get a more freer version of this image. Still if you delete it, I don't think that there will be a more freer version of this image. Images go to Minghui, and they are tagged as Gratis, that's all.
- 2. If I would be in New York, I would probably try to get this for you, but I'm not so I can not. I contacted the people from Minghui and FalunDafa.org via email listed on their site, however I did not receive a reply. Maybe there are way to many spams ... Still I'll try to talk with them, but with the current status of defamation propaganda going on in China, I doubt that I'll get a GFDL picture from them which can be modified.
- 3. What is wrong in waiting for a GFDL image before deleting this one? The only way somebody can prove that this is indeed a replaceable image is to have another GFDL one waiting in line. --HappyInGeneral 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gratis does not mean it can be shown. Gratis means it can be downloaded, from clearwisdom, and nothing more. In the absence of any other licensing declaration, the image is automatically "all rights reserved", which means that it is a violation of copyright law for us to show it here except as by fair use. Regarding what we can and cannot display here and why, I would ask you to read these replies again. The text on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. The images we use here must therefore be GFDL or GFDL-compatible. The only exception for this is Wikipedia:Fair use, which does not apply in this case. If fair use does not apply, and since the image is not GFDL-compatible then we are violating copyright law. We cannot wait and break the law in the meantime until a legal substitute is found. The only reason the image is not yet deleted is to provide a window of time for discussion of legality. I am sorry this is stressing you. I am not going to be the one who deletes the image; I am not an admin so I cannot delete it, nor would I if I were an admin, since I have involved myself in the discussion. But I am sure it will be deleted. Please do not take this personally, it's just that we can't break copyright law even for a good image. Also, it is not necessary to prove that this is replacable, the fair use policy requires that if the image is expected to be replacable, then it must be deleted. Mr. Li is alive, and not a hermit, and not in prison, and there are no other reasons to believe that it would be impossible to take a picture of him, so it is reasonable to expect that the image may be replacable. That doesn't mean that it has to be easy. Again, this is not really optional as you may like. We are bound by the restraints of law. — coelacan — 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I found the following text on all the http://www.ClearHarmony.net articles: "You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source." This actually says that all the content can be circulated, which means that it can be shown, as long as the source is mentioned. This means that if an image can be traced back to ClearHarmony, there should be nothing illegal in showing it. Please confirm if you agree with this understanding. Thank You again. --HappyInGeneral 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Found it.[1] That does permit redistribution, but it does not allow for modification, and I'm not sure whether it would permit commercial reuse. Certainly without an explicit release of the right to modification, they still reserve this right. Which would make that a non-libre, GFDL-incompatible license. The permissions are functionally equivalent to a cc-by-nd license. Try using the {{cc-by-nd}} license here and you will see that the image is automatically tagged for speedy deletion, because "no derivative works" is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing. In short, because our license legally demands modification rights be passed down to anyone who downloads from us, then it is a violation of copyright law for us to mix this with licenses that do not expressly permit modification. — coelacan — 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I found the following text on all the http://www.ClearHarmony.net articles: "You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source." This actually says that all the content can be circulated, which means that it can be shown, as long as the source is mentioned. This means that if an image can be traced back to ClearHarmony, there should be nothing illegal in showing it. Please confirm if you agree with this understanding. Thank You again. --HappyInGeneral 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gratis does not mean it can be shown. Gratis means it can be downloaded, from clearwisdom, and nothing more. In the absence of any other licensing declaration, the image is automatically "all rights reserved", which means that it is a violation of copyright law for us to show it here except as by fair use. Regarding what we can and cannot display here and why, I would ask you to read these replies again. The text on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. The images we use here must therefore be GFDL or GFDL-compatible. The only exception for this is Wikipedia:Fair use, which does not apply in this case. If fair use does not apply, and since the image is not GFDL-compatible then we are violating copyright law. We cannot wait and break the law in the meantime until a legal substitute is found. The only reason the image is not yet deleted is to provide a window of time for discussion of legality. I am sorry this is stressing you. I am not going to be the one who deletes the image; I am not an admin so I cannot delete it, nor would I if I were an admin, since I have involved myself in the discussion. But I am sure it will be deleted. Please do not take this personally, it's just that we can't break copyright law even for a good image. Also, it is not necessary to prove that this is replacable, the fair use policy requires that if the image is expected to be replacable, then it must be deleted. Mr. Li is alive, and not a hermit, and not in prison, and there are no other reasons to believe that it would be impossible to take a picture of him, so it is reasonable to expect that the image may be replacable. That doesn't mean that it has to be easy. Again, this is not really optional as you may like. We are bound by the restraints of law. — coelacan — 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no justification provided on the Japanese page for the claim of Public Domain. It appears to be a copyright violation there as well. I have informed an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia of this issue and I expect the image will be deleted there as well. — coelacan — 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
