Image talk:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Discussion from WP:IFD
Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Section referred to allows "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." This event (wrapping of a historic statue in red tape by a contemporary artist) was a cause of some controversy and notoriety in (inter)national media. It cannot be understood properly without an image of the event, which was of short duration, so it is not possible to make a new image of it. The text examines this specific controversy. Low resolution image used as Fair Use. (It is additionally covered by "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.") Tyrenius 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry ... maybe I should have been more clear in what I was saying. Photos of 2-d objects are not considered "creative". If I take a photo of a painting that was created in the middle ages, my understanding is that my photo is in the public domain and you are free to use it, even if I jump up and down and scream at the top of my lungs that I don't want you to. (This is only US law - the law may be different elsewhere. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for the relevant caselaw.) On the other hand, photos of 3-d objects are considered creative and a copyright exists when you take a photo of a 3-d object. We cannot use news media photos as fair use. However, if the news media photo only depicts a 2-d object, that news media photo is not considered "creative" and thus, we can use it as a fair use image owned by whoever created the original 2-d object. A news media depicting anything other than a 2-d work of art cannot be used under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. At least that's my understanding of it. Once you get to something where you are dealing with copyrighted derivatives of copyrighted works, it gets complicated and if anyone familiar with copyright law has an opinion, I'd be interested. --BigDT 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are muddling up different things. A photo of a 2-d object cannot in itself be copyrighted, so (unless the original object is itself still in copyright) there is no copyright involved. Therefore there is no question of Fair Use being involved. Fair Use only applies to a copyright work. Normally copyright work cannot be used. However, there are certain exceptions to this. These are known as "Fair Use" and are outlined in Fair use. US law of the Copyright Act of 1976 applies as wikipedia servers are in the US. Such Fair Use involves balancing factors such as "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Wikipedia's approach is stricter than the law demands, and is, as the introduction to WP:FU states: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". This is the rationale for the Fair Use of this photo. It is a unique, historical event and it is now impossible to make a replacement image. Tyrenius 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a contradiction between the introduction to WP:FU and WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. The latter also has an ambiguity, which we are reading differently. These points are obviously much wider in application than this particular image and need to be clarified. Tyrenius 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. —Angr 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not as clearcut as some of the images below, but I'll have to go with delete because the image itself is not commented on by the article - the article comments on the subject of the image. The latter is not a valid application of fair use, but the former is. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please note the image and its syndication by Reuters is now mentioned specifically in the text as a key factor in itself, not just used for illustrative purposes. Tyrenius 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
