Image talk:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This image was nominated for deletion on 2006 December 12. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Replaceable fair use
OK, the image has the wrong copyright tag, but how on earth can a free version be created? It was hardly an occasion to which amateur photographers were invited!-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's clearly not fair use for the purposes of "illustrating the object in question." Which, according to the article title, is Nick Berg. It would be fair use in an article about the imprisonment or beheading of Nick Berg, however. --Strothra 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:FAIR does not say a fair use image can only be used if it illustrates the subject of the article. Criteria 8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. The picture is clearly being used to illustrate the circumstances of Nick Berg's death in his article, which was fairly unique and highly shocking.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The provision for images taken from screenshots, however, states: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." That is not their use in the article. Generally, photos from press outlets such as AP, Reuters, or Al Jazeera are not considered Fair use unless they are iconic. Some exceptions have been made, however, for images of similar major notoreity such as the Muhammad cartoons. See WP:FAIR#Counterexamples. Whether or not these images are of similar notoreity is unclear which is why they are up for IFD. --Strothra 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That provision is from a list uses for which there is general approval. It doesn't say that no other use can be made of film and television screenshots. In this case the footage is the only recording of a notable event, using it to show that event is precisely what fair use claims were designed for. In addition, I would argue that this is an iconic image that cannot be obtained in a more free format.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read the list again. It clearly states, Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use. If the article was primarily about the event then it would be easier to argue for fair use, however, it is not about the event, it is about Nick Berg. Hence, not fair use. --Strothra 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean counter-example 5, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo would seem to apply if the pictures was being used to illustrate Nick Berg. It is not, it is being used to illustrate his death as it would seem criteria 8 of the policy allows for. I don't understand your point about the fact that it would be easier to argue if it were an article about his death- (see quote from criteria 8 above) whether it illustrates an article or section about his death seems irrelevant. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strothra, I am speaking as someone who has tagged and deleted over 100 fair-use images, and this use is definitely valid. The image is being used in a section about Berg's execution. It doesn't have to be a separate article, being in an appropriate section of an article is okay. It is plainly obvious that this use is valid. Andrew Levine 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not precisely what I am arguing. I am arguing that the image violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples as it's not really an iconic image as well as the fact that there are two images taken from the video. Thus, you cannot have two images demonstrating the same exact issue and yet claim in both images that "a free equivalent" does not exist for each image when that is clearly not the case. One could take a hundred stills from that video and thus, more images are available and are, as you claim, free. I can see having one image, but not two. The fair use rationale states, "Where no free equivalent is available" yet by splicing several images from the same video you're essentially arguing that many free equivalents are available. --Strothra 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody is claiming that any stills from the video are free. Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that someone is. Could you clarfiy what you're saying? Andrew Levine 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not precisely what I am arguing. I am arguing that the image violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples as it's not really an iconic image as well as the fact that there are two images taken from the video. Thus, you cannot have two images demonstrating the same exact issue and yet claim in both images that "a free equivalent" does not exist for each image when that is clearly not the case. One could take a hundred stills from that video and thus, more images are available and are, as you claim, free. I can see having one image, but not two. The fair use rationale states, "Where no free equivalent is available" yet by splicing several images from the same video you're essentially arguing that many free equivalents are available. --Strothra 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read the list again. It clearly states, Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use. If the article was primarily about the event then it would be easier to argue for fair use, however, it is not about the event, it is about Nick Berg. Hence, not fair use. --Strothra 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That provision is from a list uses for which there is general approval. It doesn't say that no other use can be made of film and television screenshots. In this case the footage is the only recording of a notable event, using it to show that event is precisely what fair use claims were designed for. In addition, I would argue that this is an iconic image that cannot be obtained in a more free format.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The provision for images taken from screenshots, however, states: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." That is not their use in the article. Generally, photos from press outlets such as AP, Reuters, or Al Jazeera are not considered Fair use unless they are iconic. Some exceptions have been made, however, for images of similar major notoreity such as the Muhammad cartoons. See WP:FAIR#Counterexamples. Whether or not these images are of similar notoreity is unclear which is why they are up for IFD. --Strothra 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:FAIR does not say a fair use image can only be used if it illustrates the subject of the article. Criteria 8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. The picture is clearly being used to illustrate the circumstances of Nick Berg's death in his article, which was fairly unique and highly shocking.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew, in this case any still from the same source is iconic, the same would apply to any relevant still from the Zapruder film. Still, the use of fair use images should be limited, WP:FUC criterion #3 states:
- "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. [...] Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately."
So using as few stills as possible (preferably one) is the desired solution. --Oden 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that we can get by with just one; I think the image showing the kidnappers is more iconic and more useful to illustrating the article, and the picture of Berg in the chair should be removed. Andrew Levine 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- One could argue that the image is highly notable in the Western world. You cannot, however, argue that the image is iconic lest you forget what the term means. An icon is a single representation of something much larger than itself. The image of Berg before his beheading is hardly representative of terrorism or even all terrorism in Iraq. Regardless, I can see an argument for the image having enough "major notoreity" to get by with one.--Strothra 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The image doesn't have to be "iconic" to pass with a fair use claim; I used that word to say that the latter image was more closely associated than the first. I don't think the picture is "iconic," just more deserving of that description than the first one. Anyway, your statement about the image being "representative of terrorism" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since the picture's not illustrating terrorism in general; what's in question is whether the image is "representative of the beheading of Nick Berg," which it clearly is. Andrew Levine 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- One could argue that the image is highly notable in the Western world. You cannot, however, argue that the image is iconic lest you forget what the term means. An icon is a single representation of something much larger than itself. The image of Berg before his beheading is hardly representative of terrorism or even all terrorism in Iraq. Regardless, I can see an argument for the image having enough "major notoreity" to get by with one.--Strothra 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that we can get by with just one; I think the image showing the kidnappers is more iconic and more useful to illustrating the article, and the picture of Berg in the chair should be removed. Andrew Levine 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is unequivocally not replaceable. The image does not have to illustrate the exact article name. For example, we don't need an article called "Death of Nick Berg" to use this image, the article contains text regarding this particular image/event to which no free alternative is available or will ever have the possibility of existing. Also the technical aspects of the image source are not the most important thing in copyright. For example, if some iconic event occurred and the camera happened to be an analog film camera that captured it, we do not have to be talking about television or film. There are some rule of thumb guidelines in place to help people understand that random celebrity images off television are not acceptable, this is a different case.
There may be some confusion here, "Thus, you cannot have two images demonstrating the same exact issue and yet claim in both images that "a free equivalent" does not exist for each image when that is clearly not the case." As Andrew Levine stated, there are no free images. None of these are free. This may be some confusion regarding the term replaceable. The term on wikipedia in image tagging means replaceable with a free alternative. Of course you can replace these images with a number of other non-free stills from the same video. The image is still not replaceable in that we can't get a free version. - cohesion 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:FUC requires among other things that:
- "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." (criterion #1).
- "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose" (criterion #8).
- Since the image depicts a non-repeatable event it is unlikely that a free image can or will be created to replace it. As long as it is used appropriately to illustrate articles discussing the events depicted it should be permissible.--Oden 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
