Image talk:AntiRussianPoster.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use rationale

Please do not remove the fair use rationale. If you think it is invalid, please start an IfD Alex Bakharev 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I think this image is used in violation of the very first statement of the fair use rationale. It states: The poster is used the for the critical commentary on the ultra-radical political movement it represents. If one looked at the use of this image, one could notice that it is not being used for for the critical commentary on the ultra-radical political movement it represents. For example this image has been used in Russians in Ukraine with no justification whatsoever, where it is used in violation of this fair use rationale, it is also being used in Anti-Russian sentiment, where it is used as an evidence of alleged anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine — again in violation of the aforementioned fair use rationale. It has been attempted to use this image on personal user pages and talk pages[1][2]. It is nowhere that this image is used for critical commentary on the ultra-radical political movement "Svoboda", as the article on that political party does not exist, instead it is used for purposes other than allowed by fair use clause. It is used in violation of the fair use rationale in every single instance! --Hillock65 03:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful not to unintentionally spread the message of an extremist party that got only 0.36% of the vote by placing this image in articles where it does not properly belong. In my opinion the proper place for it is in the article about the movement which produced it, or about the leader of that movement. Such use would be in conformity with the fair use rationale given. Balcer 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this image would be fair use on articles Oleh Tiahnybok and Svoboda (political party), the former being the leader of the movement and the latter being the movement itself, if these articles were to exist. Simply put, it's use right now on Anti-Russian sentiment and Russians in Ukraine is not in line with fair use qualifications as there is no commentary on this movement in the articles it's currently in. I will remove it within a few days and orphan it if there is no commentary on the subjects provided. — Moe ε 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, if you read the article where the image is used, it does contain the critical commentary on this movement. Here is the quote from the article:

The ultra-right nationalist political party "Svoboda", marginal on the national scale,[ref] often invokes the radical Russophobic rhetoric (see poster) and has sufficient electoral support to form factions in several municipal and provincial local councils in Western Ukraine.

The poster specifically illustrates this aspect. It is not used in disconnection to the party to illustrate the phenomenon. It is uses fully in accordance with WP:FU guideline. --Irpen 06:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please note that the poster was already scaled down to the lower resolution than the original. I am not sure your further scaling down is necessary, but I don't mind it either. How do we decide if the previous reduced version is already low enough or not? Anyway, this is a minor point. --Irpen

I think it is a weak ploy to keep this poster splattered all over the Wikipedia. I highly doubt one sentence qualifies as a critical commentary in articles, which have nothing to do with the Svoboda party or its leader. Besides the criteria for images' use in WP contradict this abuse of fair use. Here is an example from WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use. I took the liberty of highlighting the parts some find so difficult to comprehend — An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate an article (or article section) on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article. This image is used in clear violation of the fair use rationale. I don't object to this image being on WP or its being used in an article about that political party. Instead this image has been used (or should I say, abused) by people with known anti-Ukrainian tendencies to flame xenophobic passions by splattering it in as many places as humanly possible and disproportionally inflating the importance of a fringe political party that has less then half a percentage point of popular vote. It is wrong to do so on many levels. --Hillock65 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, but critical commentary isn't defined in a sentence or two. You need a major body of text for fair use application. An entire paragraph or two on Svoboda and the starter of the movement would be exceptable for fair use application. That little blurb about Svoboda doesn't require a fair use image, nor does that text provide content that could easily be replaced by a free image. Fair use images are meant to show an illustration of what the image's subject is about. The major topic in both articles is Anti-Russian sentiment by Ukranians, not Svoboda, which I'm sure there are free images about Anti-Russian behavior. As for the lower resolution, fair use qualification is generally described as 300px by 300px or lower unless a valid reason is given for a higher resolution, which is generally a case-to-case basis. — Moe ε 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, you are completely right that the "fair use images are meant to show an illustration of what the image's subject is about". But the image's subject is not just the "party in general" but the narrower issue of the political stance of this party towards the ethnic Russians and the relation of the radical Ukrainian nationalism represented by this party with xenophobia.

That this is the image of Svoboda party per se would not have qualified it automatically to illsutrate even the Svoboda party article. This is not the party logo, which would qualify by default. This image does not universally illustrate the party in question, only the specific aspect of it, the radical Russophobia. Thus, inclusion of this image requires a specific elaboration on the issue in the text, be it the party article or any other article where such elaboration fits the content.

What justifies the image under the fairuse is the critical commentary about the party's Russophobia, not about the party in general. The critical comment about the connection between Russophobia and Ukrainian nationalism exemplified best by this party may be proper not only in the dedicated party article, and such commentary is exactly provided in the article in question. The anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine is illustrated by the platform of some of Ukrainian nationalist parties. How strong or weak is this sentiment? This question is purely a content matter and copyright issues have nothing to do with that.

Hillock tries to skirt the real issue, a content dispute, and replace it by a misleading copyright talk. The discussion here should be whether the issue of Svoboda's Russophobia belongs to the particular article or it is a NPOV violation as wer WP:UNDUE? This is purely a content dispute and should be treated as such. If you read Hillock's argument carefully, he argues content and nothing else. He thinks that discussing the issue in the article is POV based on this party's significance or lack of it. This is a totally separate issue from the image's copyright status and Hillock attempts to substitute the content argument by invoking policies that are not relevant to the issue at hand in order to find a workaround and prevail in the content dispute which he is unable to "win" based on the merit of his arguments.

The image is closely tied to the content of the article. If the content dispute ends with the conclusion that this issue does not belong to the article, the image would go together with the issue. But this is a totaly separate issue. --Irpen 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you are intentionally mileading people here and misrepresent facts. First off, if you look at the history of my edits, my attempts to delete this image for fair use violations was never a content issue. Never. My attempts to delete it, though faulty ones, were prompted by this images's deletion from Russianname's userspace by other editors[3][4]. Upon exemining the reason for this deletion, I saw that this image had been used with copy-right violations in other articles. I didn't care for the content. That image was there for weeks before I noticed the fair use violation. I wouldn't even bother for the content if you didn't shamelessly try to circumvent the fair use rationale by inserting a blurp about the Svoboda party in the Russians in Ukraine, where it is clearly out of context. So, it has always been a copyright violation, a content dispute was added, when you tried to abuse the fair use provison in the Russians in Ukraine. If you dealt with the copy-right violation honestly without cheap ploys to keep this image in all articles at all costs, it would remain the copyvio issue forever. So, please don't invent thing and don't try to sway this discussion from the fair use abuse to content dispute. As far as this page and this discussion go, it has always been a copy-right violation issue. --Hillock65 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you misunderstand the whole spirit of the "fair use" idea. If we have an article called Cinema of the United States, we cannot just put in a movie poster from The Godfather for example, claiming fair use because after all that is an example of an American film. Similarly, if a movie is about A, we cannot put its poster in the article about A on fair use basis. In particular, if we have a movie about racism, we cannot put its poster in our racism article etc. It follows then that even though the poster in question is anti-Russian, it cannot go into our Anti-Russian sentiment as fair use solely on that basis. Now if you could demonstrate that this image is famous and well known (at least in Ukraine or Russia) as an example of anti-Russian sentiment, that would be a different issue. But so far, this has not even been suggested. Balcer 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I really do not understand your concerns. When we have an article about posters of American films it is all right to have a Godfather poster (unless there are free posters available). If in the American film article we discuss posters it is certainly fair use to use a specific poster to illustrate the point. The copyrighted image in question is used to discuss possible discomfort that Russians of Ukraine may feel from the marginal nationalist parties such as Svoboda that produced the image. It is very similar to the usage of Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg and similar images in e.g. New antisemitism that was intensively discussed (just check [5]) and found to be conforming with wikipedia fair use rules. In fact the Antisemitism image was a much more complicated case because of the BLP issues. Alex Bakharev 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting example, though using it as precedent here can be questioned. The rally poster has a very specific context, and the date and circumstances of its display are given (i.e. it was displayed at a significant war protest in a major US city). So if you want to use precedent as justification here, if in this case we had a photograph of this poster on a wall, with place and date given, and particular significance explained (say it was in a major Ukrainian city in a prominent square on election day), some fair use argument could be made. But we don't have that information. For this particular poster here, do we have any evidence that it was ever widely displayed and made a significant impact? Balcer 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Examples

I noticed that AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg is cited as an example of fair use image. Well, there are a few things that are different. For example, this picture is not attributed to any particular political party, it's a picture of a rally, in their rationale they do not claim to be providing critical commentary on the political movement as there are none, but rather on a phenomenon, and the owner of the copy rights on that image has allowed it to be used under a creative commons attribution licence. In our case the AntiRussianPoster.jpg is clearly attributed to the Svoboda party, which holds the copy rights of that image. In the rationale of this image it is stated that it is to be used for critical commentary on the political party, who issued it. Instead, it's been used in articles that have nothing to do with the Svoboda party. That image is used in two articles that are clearly defined in the rationale, whereas this image's use is being abused with token blurps added to articles to justify its inclusion there. --Hillock65 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you got enought about the image in the Russians in Ukraine talk page. M.V.E.i. 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)