- Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Mugshot of counter-culture comedian George Carlin. This file was deleted by Howcheng (talk · contribs) pursuant to an ifd nomination. It was undeleted a short time later by Alkivar (talk · contribs) with the claim that "debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete". Abu badali (talk · contribs) brought the issue up at AN/I, whereupon this image was again deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs). Note that in IfD closings policy often trumps consensus, or lack thereof. Note also that the image was not a blatant copyright violation and there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies. The copyright status of mugshots varies based on jurisdiction and local laws, so the tag defaults to a fair use claim. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is this a procedural listing? --Abu badali (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, see below. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - I think that the IfD nomination was largely baseless. George Carlin was a free-speech pioneer following in the footsteps of Lenny Bruce ('cept the obsessive indignant streak) and his "Seven dirty words" bit led to a Supreme Court case and notable changes in FCC policy. The mugshot of a comedian detained for "public indecency" is iconic and would serve a valuable purpose in Carlin's article. It is not, as Abu badali claims, an "Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor". ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute: An inconic image is not one that has been produced during an iconic event. An iconic image is one that have been discussed by other sources. Do you know of any discussion (by reliable sources) about this image?
- About the nomination being "baseless"... are you sure you're familiar with item #8 of our policy on non-free content? Non-free material is not used unless it's absence compromises the understanding of the text. It must convey (noteworthy) information that words alone can not. That image was only being used to illustrate the fact that that man was arrested, but this is the kind of information that doesn't need an image to be understood. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Iconic is not a legal term, it is instead a wonderfully descriptive word used to add emphasis. Your appeal to reliable sources would only be relevant if I was proposing to add the word "iconic" to Carlin's article or mugshot caption.
- I am aware of criterion #8, but it is not wholly aligned to your interpretation. I suppose that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description; after all, do you really need Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg to visualize JFK sitting in the back of a convertible? It is preposterous to claim that media associated with notable developments must be somehow *proven* to be significant. There are no alternative free-license photographs of Carlin that could adequately portray the artist as he appeared at the time of his arrest. As this photograph documents an important development, its editorial value is self-evident. If you had written the article, I could understand an objection based on editorial grounds. However, seeing as you are a self-professed fair-use inquisitor, you start of with a conservative set of presuppositions and proceed to cherry-pick random copyrighted images without much concern for actual encyclopedic coverage. This is a criticism of your method, the same thought process that led to your biased (and, IMO, deeply flawed) IfD nomination. So no, I don't agree with the assertion that this mugshot violates NFCC#8, or any other criterion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I never said or implied "iconic" was a legal term. But if you plan to keep this image based on the fact that it's iconic (what I believed was your argument above), then you'll have to provide sources for the claim that the image is iconic. It's not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to establish the image's "iconicness". We in this case, we would be using the image to talk about its notability, and not as a convenient illustration.
- I completely disagree that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description. A lot of images contain noteworthy information that can't be conveyed by text. But a mugshot is hardly one of those images.
- You're completely mistaken if you believe that the use of non-free material is an editorial decision. We have a (very strict) policy that can't be ignored. Deciding among a non-free image and a piece of free text that conveys the same information is not an editorial decision! Our policy dictates that, as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. --Abu badali (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um... any decision that has any bearing on article content is an editorial decision. You assert that a mugshot does not contain noteworthy information, I disagree. So do several other editors. You appear to agree that not every photograph can be replaced by a text description, but then say that as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. I think that it is naive to ignore any possible overlap, or to assume a definite line separating the two extremes. In short: this picture is worth a thousand words. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn The debate itself had no consensus to delete, nor is this a clear case of policy trumping consensus/lack there of, the fair use claim is justified in that the arrest associated with the mug shot has historical value. I have heard of that picture before I saw it here today. Until(1 == 2) 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you could point to sources discussing that picture, maybe it could be kept. But besides that, it was a clear case of policy being applied. Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the same token, I could claim that you failed to explain why this image was "non-notable" in spite of overwhelming evidence or "unnecessary" despite multiple contradictory opinions. Alternately, I could point out that it is ludicrous to demand a sourced discussion of every copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Some images are notable or controversial in and of themselves while others are notable for documenting a controversy. It is important to recognize the difference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can't use the same token because the onus is on the one wanting to use the non-free material. We need strong reasons to use non-free material, and not to not-use it. Every non-free image must contain a fair use rationale explaining, among other things, what is the image used for and why can't free text (or images) be used for that purpose. This image failed to do so, this was pointed out in the ifd nomination, but the problem wasn't fixed during the ifd discussion. The deletion was the correct decision! --Abu badali (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I just said: you simply ignore any reasons put forth for using this image. On a side note, it did include a detailed rationale. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse - Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. Unless some new information arrives (as some claim that this image is notable), the deletion must be endorsed. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn There was CLEARLY no consensus to delete at IFD as 1 delete and 1 keep does not a consensus make, the only user pushing for this deletion is Abu Badali who has been stalking my contributions for months. Image had a very strong fair use rationale, and met all 10 of the WP:NFCC criterion. Abu Badali's immediate run over to ANI to object to my undeletion clearly shows he's following my actions, as undeletions do not trigger on watchlists. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, avoid personal attacks. Also, as an admin, you should already understand that consensus has nothing to do with counting votes. --Abu badali (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Umm ... I have no idea how he came to be aware of your undeletion, but right after you undeleted the image, you edited it to remove the IFD notice. That would trigger a watchlist. --B 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't really care but IFD, unlike AFD, is more a question of policy than of consensus. If the !votes for keeping a replaceable fair use image are 10-1 in favor of keeping it, we still delete it. Consensus only matters when it is an editorial question (ie, should a low quality photo or drawing be deleted) rather than a policy one. Personally, I don't see how a mugshot can add significantly to the article. WP:FAIR, paraphrasing Kat Walsh, says that we use non-free images for subjects "that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself." We could not, for example, discuss the Kent State shootings without the famous photo. But a mug shot? Unless it's someone like William Morva who will be in jail for the rest of his life and a mug shot is the only photo we will ever have, I don't see a reason for it. A mug shot just to illustrate the fact that the guy was arrested isn't that big of a deal. --B 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. I don't see consensus to delete or any policy that trumps consensus. I'm on the fence on Abu's WP:NFCC#8 objection, but that's a judgment call anyway, not a clear matter of policy. When it's relisted, I do think the copyright holder should be clarified per WP:NFCC#10, and I think we need to confirm that it was published (as opposed to just leaked) to satisfy WP:NFCC#4 (unless there's some exception for this sort of public record). -- But|seriously|folks 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why this image is necessary for the understanding of the text, and that this alone is ground for deletion, what benefit would a relist do? I see we having like 19 votes saying keep while still not explaining why is this image necessary for the understanding of the text. The image would have to be deleted anyway and a new horde of policy-unsavvy users would come to argue about how the "19x1 consensus" wasn't followed. Please, read the ifd achieves from the last months. If it wasn't for Alkivar breach of admin tools, this ifd wasn't different at all from dozen of others closed daily. --Abu badali (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mugshots are neither published nor leaked, they are a matter of public record. FWIW, here's an example of this mugshot's use in published journalism. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the copyright status was never an issue in the ifd nomination. Unless this image comes out to be free (in each case it's use would be an editorial decision), it shouldn't be used because it doesn't helps in the article's comprehension. --Abu badali (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strange, I figure the journalist must have had some reason to use it... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have checked the websites of the authorities that arrested him and they said nothing about the copyright status of their images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is disputed whether booking photographs constitute copyrightable subject matter. Authorities provide access to them as public records, they don't publish them as intellectual property. If they are copyrighted, the copyright is held by local governments, i.e. non-commercial entities, thus easing the standards for a fair use claim. In this case, Carlin's booking photo has been published by the media and holds a unique historic value. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from closer: To respond to User:Anetode's argument "there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies", all I have to say is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. His second argument about a journalist is also irrelevant. Uses that may be allowed under "fair use" in the U.S. are routinely disallowed here because they are not compatible with the goal of free content. As for its "iconic" status -- cite some reliable sources that discuss it and work them into the article. WP:NFCC #8 is supposed to be pretty clear: The article must need the image such that if it were missing, the reader would have a hard time understanding what the article is trying to say. This really is more of a procedural nomination, despite all claims to the contrary. I could have !voted after which it probably would have been deleted by someone else, citing a consensus, or I figured I'd just save that other person the trouble and just do it. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Following your interpretation of NFCC #8 the following all fail Image:TrangBang.jpg Image:Tianasquare.jpg Image:Aftermath_of_the_Bath_School_Disaster.png Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg ... your interpretation is absolutely 100% without a doubt impossible to pass for any image. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Otherstuffexists wasn't an argument for using this particular image, I mentioned it to define the context of prior editorial decisions. That is to say that there are numerous occasions when consensus determined the necessity of using a mugshot in a biography (e.g. Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse; otherwise, why keep them around?). To address your other point, I believe that there is a clear basis for using this image. It contributes significantly to the article - an editorial stance corroborated by journalists using it for exactly the same purpose. You will be hard pressed to find a discussion of the majesty of this booking photo as it's not an artistic piece. It wasn't exactly like the police department published it in a "best-of" calendar or that this mugshot made it into photography magazines. Nevertheless it does document a very notable event, one studied by first amendment scholars as well as cultural historians. Public records of notable events hold a historic value. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The ifd nomination and deletion was never about an editorial decision. It's about the policy. The "journalists using it for exactly the same purpose" are not committed to free content. In their case, it is only an editorial decision. We can only see this as "clear basis for using this image" if we choose to ignore what WP:NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- overturn not only the most extremely notable images are important. In the context of his life and activities, this is sufficiently significant to justify itself. DGG (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Here is an example of a story on that incident. It uses that photograph. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=626471 That's strong evidence that specific photograph is important enough to be fair use. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- This only shows that the image is useful. Do you understand that, for non-free material be used on Wikipedia, it must be far more than simply useful? --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It must, in fact, cure world hunger. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your sarcasm is not particularly helpful. The standard set in WP:NFCC #8 is that the image must be required for reader comprehension. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. 1) Are mugshots produced in the US really nonfree? I was under the impression that they were uncopyrightable and public record, like trial transcripts. 2) I seem to recall there even being a licensing template for mugshots. 3) Did I miss a discussion somewhere? Heather 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, to all questions. I'll number yours for easy reference. :-) 1) It's debatable, see the discussion at answer 3. 2) Why yes, there is, Template:Mugshot. 3) Yes, the discussion is at Template_talk:Mugshot. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks greatly! Heather 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore per nom. Golfcam 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Do you have some new information to add? --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- "I've been convinced by the nominator's arguments" is a perfectly fine statement, and important, lets the closer judge consensus. Convincing people is the goal of the discussion, right? It's not just presenting arguments, and the side with the most different ones wins, but rather the side with the most convincing arguments wins. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per Anetode. I don't approve of relisting, most IfDs don't get enough traffic for a debate. Anetode's explanation as to why this image is needed is a good one, indeed, the label "iconic" does not seem incorrect to me. Mangojuicetalk 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute - An iconic image is one that have been discussed by many reliable sources, won some award, etc., Not one that is specially convenient to decorate a a discussion topic. An image's iconic status must be established outside of Wikipedia. Who, other than wikipedia editors, have considered this image notable? It's surely "useful", as shown by the news articles using them. But there's a long way from "useful" to "notable". This image had no impact on the history, not even in the history of the person depicted. The event it illustrates (the arrest) had a lot of impact, but not all pictures of Elvis are notable images. --Abu badali (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please consolidate your disputes, as it is you are adding the same argument to nearly every comment that doesn't agree with your position. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images. This is different, because no one stands to profit from this image in any way. So, since it is an important, non-repeatable historic event, for which no free alternative can be created, and for which omission would harm the article (the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words), and on top of that, it has no market use, this image is, in my interpretation, compliant with every one of the 10 points at WP:NFC. You may disagree, but I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other. Mangojuicetalk 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images" -> I don't know where this restriction comes from.
- "...the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words" -> We absolutely do not use non-free images to cause a "visual impact". We use it to discuss topics "that are hard discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself."
- "I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other" - That the whole point of a discussion! We would be having a poll and counting votes if we didn't believe discussions to be important. --Abu badali (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and undelete or dismantle the existence of fair use all-together on Wikipedia. If we're not going to do the latter, then this image clearly satisfies even the most anal interpretation of our fair use guidelines and needs to remain. It isn't here for decoration like most other images we happen to host (the other 99%). Burntsauce 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima satisfies the most anal interpretations. That article cannot exist without that photo. That photo has had books written about it, a monument designed after it, and a film made about it. Where is the commentary about this mugshot? howcheng {chat} 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh but you see, there are SEVERAL NON-RESTRICTED FREE LICENSED equivalents of that image: Image:First_Iwo_Jima_Flag_Raising.jpg Image:IwoJimaWikipedia.jpg Image:USMC_War_Memorial_Night.jpg so by policy that image should be deleted... but wait your implying we should keep it... how about applying some consistency here! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now you've shown your failure to understand the difference between "using an image to illustrate an event" and "using an image to illustrate a discussion about the image itself". Understanding this difference is a pre-requisite for understanding the concept of Fair use as well as for understanding our policy on non-free content. --Abu badali (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is a very subtle point that many people simply do not get. The article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is about the photograph, not the act of placing of the flag, just like The Falling Man is about that photograph, and Guernica (painting) is about the painting, and not the Bombing of Guernica. This last example is a perfect analogy and maybe it's more obvious because of the different media (painting vs photograph). howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- This photograph accompanies critical commentary of the event it documents, it provides a visual context. No, of course it is not as significant as "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", few photographs have ever reached that level of renown. You can't write an article entirely on Carlin's mugshot, but the section on his arrest should be expanded. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, but can you see the difference between the importance of the photograph itself vs. what is depicted in the photograph? Was the mugshot of any importance in and of itself? Was it the target of parody? Were future works inspired because of the mugshot? If you can cite references that state these sorts of things, then the image becomes required to understanding the text. See WP:NFCC #8 -- in order to keep the image, its omission would have to be detrimental to the reader's comprehension. Do you honestly believe that by not having the mugshot, people would not be able to get that Carlin was arrested? I certainly don't have such a low opinion of our readers. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here's how it works: Carlin was arrested, this is documented by public records, of which this mugshot is definitive proof. Just as our editorial policies allow us to exercise fair use by quoting sources to verify biographies, they allow us the freedom to illustrate and identify important events as captured in the public record. There seems to be a higher standard on Wikipedia for fair use claims on visual intellectual property, but it is exactly the sort of information that cannot be conveyed by a free alternative. No Wikipedian is in a position to provide a free alternative to 70's booking photo. Your approach is certainly valid when applied to visual works of art and controversial photographs, but I think that it is mistaken when it comes to irreplacable visual media which documents notable events. Again I would like to assert that it is my opinion that the omission of this image would be to the reader's detriment. Again I would like to assert that it appears that I am not alone in that judgment. Again I would like to point out that the apparent fetishizing of NFCC#8 has a flawed basis if it is used to automatically dismiss the valid editorial opinions of other contributors. I don't have a low opinion of our readers, I respect that they realize and appreciate the superior coverage provided by our use of visual media to document a historic event. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "...quoting sources to verify biographies"? --Abu badali (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, do not misunderstand the meaning of "replaceable" in the context of Wikipedia's policy. It's the encyclopedic purpose of the image that should be taken into account. If a 70's booking photo in only used to convey the information that someone was arrested, it's replaceable... by free text. --Abu badali (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- By that I mean public records are sources in and of themselves, it is a unique property which adds greatly to their usefulness. The Milwaukee Police Department released a booking photo of George Carlin, booking photos are used to verify identity and arrest. This quality pertains directly to the necessity of the image. While you can convey the information that someone was arrested by text, you can do the same for absolutely any event. Many arrests are unimportant, Carlin's had a historic significance, it deserves to be documented. Perhaps not to the extent that the Iwo Jima flag raising deserved to be documented, but the mugshot has a definite historic value. You see, this is the locus of our dispute. The interpretation of NFCC#8 that leads you to want to delete this image is logically flawed, as it depends on undue weight to the image reviewer's judgment. If you look on the framework of the ten NFC criteria as a whole, you will see that they attempt to balance US fair use standards with editorial necessity. Fair use images have to be previously published - this is an objective standard for determining editorial value. Fair use images must be irreplacable - this is a standard used to determine the necessity of a fair use claim. Fair use claims must respect the commercial prospects of any photo as a piece of intellectual property - this standard determines whether a fair use claim has any standing given US copyright law. Your choice of NFCC#8 is rather obvious, as it is the only one where editorial judgment must be applied. Note that the NFCC do not require sourced discussion of an image, this appears to be a tangential criterion used by "fair use inquisitors" as something to fall back on. Again, previous publication is evidence of editorial value. Your IfD nomination of this image didn't even specify any NFC criterion, it was a haphazard attempt to get rid of an image you, personally, did not see the value of. Everything that has followed has been a sad sort of game where you attempt to nitpick Wikipedia policy to establish a set of rules skewed towards a biased and ultimately myopic interpretation of our mission to create an encyclopedia. This isn't about editors striving to suppress free content (wonder why I've been going on about replaceability?), this is indeed about the encyclopedic purpose of using a copyrighted image. And it is that very purpose that you insist on denying without any acknowledgment the importance of the arrest or its public record. Note that I am not objecting to your nomination of Image:George carlin headshot.jpg, a photograph that has no particular historical or editorial significance, where Wikipedia use clearly infringes on copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. The closer followed correct procedure. NFCC #8 requires that a non-free photograph be used only when it conveys important, encyclopedic information that words alone cannot. The use of this mugshot does not aid the readers understanding of the incident more than the statement that he was arrested. I don't see any way to read NFCC#8 that would allow us to use this image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
