Image talk:Takhli-rtafb-image2.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For this image to be replaceable, a few things need to be declared. First, there needs to be absolutely NO possibility of any public-domain government photos (check the air base's newspaper). If the government has no photos of the base, can you take pictures of the base. Normally, this would immediately eliminate an unfree photo from being used (since most things are can be photographed), but with military bases, this is different. I definitely don't encourage breaking any laws to take a picture of the base (if it's illegal to do so). Third, there can't be any NASA photos of the base. If all the above are true, then this image may remain. Otherwise, a free replacement needs to be found. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I undersand your statement with regards to the replacablity of this photo. Within the United States, the USGS digital orthophoto program is a source of PD imagery of aerials of military bases. Outside of the United States however, that program does not exist.

As access to military bases is restricted to those who are assigned to the base, dependents of those assigned to the base, or civilian workers on the base (I am none of the above) it is impossible to acquire photos of the base. Google earth/maps do not provide the sources of their imagery, and they do purchace NASA Landsat images around the world, along with other sources of imagery and aerial photography. Google does not specify the sources of their imagery, usually cite "digital globe" which is a VAR that acqires raw imagery from the various sources of supply, processes the raw data int a georeferenced form and also performs color imagery creation and also color enhancement/balancing to produce the product that google uses. The point being that the source of the imagery which is avaliable on google, as well as the other sources of web imagery online, could very well be landsat imagery, which is in the Public Domain.

Indeed, I agree with you with regards to using google to show areas of the earth that can - with some effort - be illustrated with imagery that fits wikipedia's fair use criteria. I'm stating that with regards to restricted areas and military airspace, the likelyhood of accessing those areas of the earth is not possible unless one is in a position to legally do so.

Also, as the origional source of the google processed imagery is unknown - other than it is being made available online by google - I believe I've filled out the proper tags and other forms. If you suggest any changes that should be made to the narritive, please advise and I'll be more than happy to change the tags to reflect yoru adice.

Also, as I stated to the other moderators, I consider this image to be a test and wanted a decision made to the useablity of the low-resolution (300px or less) images of the military base in question. It is NOT at the highest resolution avaialbe on google, and I've clearly made the source (as well as a link to the image) available in the justification.

In other words.. i'm TRYING to do this the right way.. ok ?

Warmest regards and thank you :)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Not so much for being outside the U.S., but for being a military base where a free photo may not be obtained. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also interested to see what happens with this image, from a test case perspective. I see a parallel here with photos of living persons: in general, copyrighted images of living persons are forbidden on the basis of replaceability. However, there are notable exceptions to that rule, for example if the person is incarcerated, or lives in complete seclusion. This is a similar situation: some places are subject to the kinds of restrictions that make it effectively impossible to create free photos and I think aerial photos of military installations fit that description in many cases and deserve an exception to the replaceability rule. This kind of photo is a good example of that, I think, and I'd be interested to see if it ends up serving as a useful precedent. -- Hux (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that this is only valid on currently ACTIVE military installtions that have restricted airspace and access. Old, inactive military facilities are not restricted access or restricted airspace don't apply. In other words, World War II airfields in England that are now farmers' fields don't apply. Closed NATO airfields in Europe don't apply either. I also have a problem (with security concerns) of active facilites being illustrated in active combat areas (Iraq, Afghanistan). Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)