Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 9

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Latest comment: 13 years ago by VernoWhitney in topic File:Monica - Here I Am (featuring Trey Songz).jpg
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

File:Carol Ann Kelly 12 yrs in her coffin.JPG

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments15 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This file is an image cropped from the cover of the book, They Shoot Children. It is currently being used in the articles, Plastic bullet and Emma Groves. In neither case is it being used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the book, as required by Wikipedia:NFCI#Images. Instead it appears to be used as an example of the danger of plastic bullets. As plastic bullets are still used globally, I would image this could be relaced by a free alternative. Its removal has been challenged on Talk:Plastic bullet. I'd like outside opinions, please. Rockpocket 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of this image's appropriateness should also extend to United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets, which is relevant and linked, even though it's barely a stub at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There are three separate issues here:
  • Should this image be used, or is it "emotive and gratuitous"? (see Talk:Plastic bullet#Use of Image)
  • Is it appropriate for the Plastic bullet article to cover the Northern Ireland protests against their use, i.e. even if conceding that it might be relevant on United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets, would it be outside scope on Plastic bullet in particular?
  • Is it acceptable under fair-use? It would appear that if the two questions above are met (or at least the first, on the other articles), then it would have a strong case for such. If they are not met, then clearly it doesn't - i.e. even though this overall question has been termed under fair-use issues, the underlying issue is really about appropriateness, not availablity of a particular image.
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As a separate issue, I would challenge the claim that "plastic bullets are still used globally" (and thus the ease of sourcing other images). Plastic bullets are, by and large a UK-specific creation, used only in Northern Ireland. Those used worldwide are rubber bullets. As we have separate articles on these, and as the lethality of the two types is significantly technically and politically different, it would be wrong to illustrate one with the other. We might find other images, but they'll be images from Northern Ireland.
For this reason I would anyway suggest merging the two articles to one under baton round, which can more easily present the overall history. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the difference between rubber and plastic bullets. My apologies. Nonetheless, irrespective if the points you make (which are also valid considerations), we are using the cover of a book in a way that inconsistent with official policy (Wikipedia:NFCI#Images). For this reason alone we should remove them from these articles. Rockpocket 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this image as either "a book cover" or "cover art". It's a photograph of a historical event (i.e. #8). It was also used as a book cover (which would be #1), but it was not "cover art" in the sense of being created specifically for that book - the photo has an independent existence pre-dating this. We have sourced it from that book, but IMHO this is the same as the fairly common case where an old photo is scanned from a modern book and the old photo's copyright has expired, but not that of the newly published book. As mechanical publishing of old image creates a new copyright (under UK law at least) we can't claim PD-old any more, so it seems to be WP practice (and accepted, AFAIK) to then use that image (if suitable) under fair-use. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The claim of fair-use is for a book cover and that is explicitly how it is described in the articles ("...Carol Ann Kelly, killed by a plastic bullet, from the cover of the book "They Shoot Children"). Rockpocket 14:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
First, there is no rationale to use the image on Plastic bullet. That should be fixed in the first place.
But we clearly do not allow book covers (or crops of book covers) to be used to represent the topic they represent per WP:NFC#UUI #9, unless there is sourced commentary about the image within that article. As there is none, it's very hard to justify using the book cover (do you know if they altered the original image in any way for emotional impact, etc? we can't justify this as a replacement of the original image).
I also find it hard to justify *any* NFC for Carol Ann Kelly as there is exactly one line about the child in the article and that's just a listing of another person severely affected by the bullets. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The book is not "They shot Carol Anne Kelly" but rather "They shoot children". Its topic is the shooting and excessive injury of civilians in general, not one single death. As it is difficult to illustrate such a group en masse, it seems entirely appropriate and within fair-use to show one of the dead, as an example of the broader group.
As to the book cover issue, then I still consider it appropriate to use this image. It would be inappropriate to use the image uncropped, presented as a cover. However in this case it's merely sourcing for the image, and we would accept a scan of an identical image on a page from within the book. The difference is that this is merely that same image, not creative cover art.
I doubt very much that the image was altered in any significant way (cropping would be about the limit), simply because the book was very simply produced some years ago, and such techniques weren't available at that time to groups of this sophistication. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
WP has a stronger requirement than just "fair use"; your arguments about its use are completely in line with fair use but fail NFC. The presence of the image does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of Plastic bullets (moreso than the image of Emma Groves already does), nor the topic of Emma Groves. The fact that it is a trimmed version of a book cover makes it moreso a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

While the image may have originally been uploaded as a book cover, the image is not currently a book cover as it has been cropped. It looks to me like an existing photo was used on the book cover, thus making any fair use claim simply based on the image itself, not any subsequent use. The cover of this book uses the most widely circulated photo of Bobby Sands, if we want to use the original photo it doesn't suddenly become a book cover for fair use purposes. There's a subtle yet important difference between a book cover and as photo that was used on a book cover I believe certain editors are missing here. Obviously the image would still need a valid rationale for any article(s) it's being used in.... 2 lines of K303 13:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yes. Too many editors seem to be getting overly hung up on this question of it being a book cover. The list at WP:NFCI is not intended to be a closed list of the only possible acceptable uses of images; rather, it supposed to indicate as examples some acceptable uses. Regarding cover material, the text reads:
  1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
A key thing to note is that this discusses only when the use of cover art for the purpose of identification of the relevant object is or is not acceptable. It says nothing, neither for not against, the acceptability of cover art for any other relevant encyclopedic purpose.
The bottom line remains NFCC #8, and the rest of the NFC criteria. If the image passes those, then it's acceptable; if it doesn't then it isn't. But what is certainly needed is for the image to add something important about the topic of the article for readers reading it. Jheald (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, WP:NFC does discuss cropping cover art for other uses: listed under "Unacceptable use" is "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses." I think a photo of a child killed by plastic bullets, cropped from a book about the child, to illustrate an article on plastic bullets and an article on someone else injured by a plastic bullet, falls into that category. —Angr (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo is clearly "emotive and gratuitous" in the 2 articles where it's been used. It might be used in an article about the victim herself if we had one AND: I wonder what the relatives would think of the photo being used here. If it was clear that the relatives supported its use here, or even if it was clear that the publishers of They Shoot Children had fairly general permission to use this photo - e.g. in adverts as well as on the cover - then I wouldn't be against its use here. However, I know nothing about how the publishers got that photo, and I don't see much chance of finding out for sure. In the absence of a relevant article AND a good indication of how the relatives feel about its use, I say let dead children rest in peace. Smallbones (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware both the book and the image were not subject to copyright. I will check it out for you. --Domer48'fenian' 22:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
In the U.S., anything published since 1 January 1978 is automatically subject to copyright protection, regardless of whether it had a copyright notice, unless the author explicitly relinquishes copyright. If the work was published outside the U.S., it's public domain in the U.S. only if it was public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996. I don't know what the rules in the UK are for works published without a copyright notice (assuming the book even was published without copyright notice). —Angr (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't really questioning the copyright status. More along the line of "How do we know that the publisher was acting ethically in using the picture?" or "If the publisher was acting ethically, how do we know that its agreement with the family would be consistent with using the picture on Wikipedia?" In any case the book data are "They shoot children: the use of rubber and plastic bullets in the north of Ireland" by Liz Curtis, published by "Information on Ireland," 1988, 38 pages. I don't wish to disparage the publisher, but I would feel much more confident of using this picture if I knew the publisher was a long respected, highly upstanding company. Smallbones (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the issue raised by One Night In Hackney be addressed, the picture is mentioned in the book. --Domer48'fenian' 13:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
But the article is not about the book, the picture or the subject of the picture, nor does it contain significant critical commentary about those. Wikipedia should only use non-free media in exceptional circumstances. Angr, above, explains why this doesn't fall into that category. Rockpocket 19:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The image seems to be used for its shock value. If the article says "plastic bullets" can kill, and that fact is sourced, a photo of a victim isn't needed. I'm sure it's needed for the cover of the book, in order to grab readers' attention, but that's a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate use per WP:NFCC/Wikipedia:NFCI#Images. It matters nil whether or not the publisher was acting ethically in publishing the image. Wikipedia is not responsible for the acts of this publisher. No point in discussing the "emotive and gratuitous" appropriateness of the image, if it is not available for use. This is a copy of an image used on a book cover. Our policies specifically state the limitations and guidelines for using book cover images and derivative works.
    1. Derivative works of cover art are not allowed per WP:NFC#UUI.
    2. Cover art can only be used in the context of that particular item per WP:NFCI.
    If the image is desired for use, then locate it at another source. Either write an article about the book or delete the image. Choices, choices. Cindamuse (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate, per WP:NFCC #8, in all its proposed uses (all articles). The image has no information value with respect to illustrating the statement that "children have died from plastic bullets" or anything related. We don't need to see a picture of a dead child to understand that a child has died. The image doesn't show anything beyond this (e.g., how the child died) that would be required for understanding this fact. Its use appears to be motivated solely by the desire of appealing to the symbolic value of the image (which is quite powerful, undoubtedly), but that's not what NFC is about. Sole exception I could imagine would be if one of the articles contained a substantial discussion of what role this image played in the public campaign, for instance how the book which featured it on its title page employed the image's shock value for higher publicity impact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggest an image which would illustrate the deadly effect of plastic bullets as this image dose. Provide an alternative image which can do the same? Suggesting a motive other than that provided for its use is not helpful. --Domer48'fenian' 09:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would I need to provide an alternative image that would make this point? Especially one that would fulfil a function that the existing image in fact fails to fulfil. Because, as I just said, it just doesn't "illustrate the deadly effect of plastic bullets". From the visual information the image actually conveys, we don't get to understand anything about that – that child could just as well have died from any number of other causes, just from what the image shows us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggest why such an image is needed? The article confirms plastic bullets can kill. How does a picture of a victim add to that confirmation? In fact, how can you tell, from the picture itself, the manner in which she died? For all I know, she could have fallen down a flight of stairs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to agree, this is a clear failure of WP:NFCC. Future Perfect summed up the problems succinctly. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete image clearly fails NFCC #8 as it does not convey any particular information in a way that words alone cannot. If there is a free image depicting a victim of plastic bullets then I would have no problem, use as many as you like, but this image doesn't comply with the NFCC policy. Is it possible some of the organizations formed to protest the use of plastic bullets can be contacted and asked to provide freely-useable images? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we deleting this image because it's too emotive, or because it's not emotive enough, i.e. failing NFCC#8's to "convey something that words alone do not". You can't have it both ways. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Its useful to remember, the mission of the foundation in regard to Licensing policy, is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," foundation licencing policy is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests, and it states that, Exemption Doctrine Policy (fair use) must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events .. So primarily we are deleting it because it s not got a commons license and additionally it has no reasonable fair use rationale. This picture doesn't portray anything historic about plastic bullets or Emma Groves. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted per consensus above that the ways the image was being used failed WP:NFCC. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

CBC Logos

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}}

The above logos are listed as {{PD-textlogo}}, which says that because a logo "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes", it does not meet the threshold of originality. However, even though the logos include simple geometric shapes, they are not simply gemoetric shapes—the placement of such shapes seems very original to me. Saying that these logos are not original because they consist of shapes is like saying that No. 5, 1948 is not original because it consists of scribbles, File:Theo van Doesburg Counter-CompositionV (1924).jpg is not original because it consists of squares, and File:Mondrian Comp10.jpg is not original because it consists of mere lines and boxes. However, all of these are considered original works of art because of the artistic placement of such simple figures. Similarly, the CBC logos aren't just simple gemoetric shapes: they're simple geometric shapes artistically placed into a microphone shape. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

These seem borderline to me, so I'm not really comfortable calling them PD-textlogo. They seem to me to be roughly as creative as File:Best Western logo.svg (which as I mentioned above has been explicitly and repeatedly established as PD-textlgo), but since it's not clear that they're less creative I think they need to be retagged as non-free logos to be on the safe side. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, they are very similar in form to the Merck logo, which is tagged as PD and is on commons.--Terrillja talk 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Which Merck logo? Off the top of my head I see File:Merck-Logo.svg which is non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, File:Merck_&_Co.svg--Terrillja talk 03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. These are a touch more complex with the multiple layers of semi-circles, and unless it's been through the copyright office there's no guarantee that it's tagged correctly, but I'm inclined to agree that the Merck logo is PD, and that's got me thinking that these very well could be PD too now. Silly blurry lines for threshold of originality. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appears to support the existing PD-textlogo tags and 3 of the 4 have already been moved to commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File:NAMBLA logo.svg

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Image is text only and was tagged with a nonfree tag, retagged as PD-textlogo, then reverted. As the logo contains only text, looking for soem additional options on this as turning two letters on an angle doesn't look like original thought to me. --Terrillja talk 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this logo has a succinct artistic component in the combination of the "M" and "b" to symbolize the joining of the big/adult man and the small/juvenile/child boy. This is not a mere font selection. __meco (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the "M" and "b" arrangement is original; the joining of those letters adds additional meaning to the logo that cannot be conveyed by simple text. The logo isn't merely "words in a particular font", but rather it's "words in a particular font where the M and b are adjusted for enhanced man/boy vibes"; the second bit is an original addition to the first. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Terrillja, as there really isn't much going on here. A good standard for the threshold of creativity is File:Best Western logo.svg which has been explicitly and repeatedly established as PD-textlgo, and this is obviously simpler than that. . VernoWhitney (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Superficially I concede that, however, in the case of the NAMBLA logo the adjustment may be minor and the layout simple, however it speaks volumes inasmuch as it epitomizes an entire ideology through the symbology of that adjustment. __meco (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's nice and all, except that copyright in the United States is only concerned with creativity, not symbology or effort or anything else. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In this case that symbology is the result of creativity, clearly. __meco (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Except that "the adjustment [is] minor and the layout simple". We absolutely do not care about whether it makes some poignant statement, only the actual adjustment from completely boring plain text. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I see no exception in this whatsoever. The magnitude of the adjustment has no bearing on the measure of creativity having been employed. And although you (and your would-be posse since you present your opinion using we, the first person plural pronoun) may not find the expression of a poignant statement conveyed in a minor layout adjustment significant, I'm equally sure many would agree with me that this is in fact on what the issue of creativity hinges. __meco (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I was using "we" in the sense of those of us bound by U.S. copyright law, but for now we (as in Wikipedians involved in this discussion) can just wait and see if consensus develops with the addition of other informed opinions. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of clear consensus and as this isn't really a question regarding the use of the image and it's tagged under a more restrictive non-free license I'm closing this discussion with no action taken. If there is a continuing desire to change the license tag on the image it should be continued at WP:MCQ or another more relevant forum (e.g. on Commons if it is uploaded there). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Family photo of Majid Khan, in 1999.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} I downloaded this image from a Time magazine article, where it was credited to his family, and to the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Another contributor excised the image with the edit summary "remove copyrighted pic, just because we haven't found one yet is no excuse to use someone else's work". Sorry, this sounds like a far-fetched justification for excision. The Center for Constitutional Rights are his lawyers.

What exciser seems to be suggesting is that rather than doing everything they can to help Majid Khan get the very weak case against him noticed by the public, his family is going to choose to sell their family photos of him for profit. Since his family has already worked very hard on his behalf I just don't find this suggestion credible. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as use on Wikipedia goes, the copyright holder's intent doesn't often matter. Either the image must be explicitly released under a free license (per the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), or else it must meet all 10 points of the non-free content criteria. In this case, it appears that the other editor is implying that the image fails WP:NFCC#1, which is to say that it is replaceable with a free image. In most cases, a living person may be photographed and so non-free images are not acceptable.
The closest parallels to this situation that I'm aware of is that images of people who are imprisoned for life and not allowed visitors tend to be acceptable, but images of those imprisoned for short periods of time or likewise being held temporarily pending trial are not acceptable. I don't know of a precedent for those being held indefinitely, and I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of the situation to be able to provide an informed opinion at the moment as to which category this image falls into, but I hope that clears up the reason for the removal of the image in the first place. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. As to the "indefinite detention" aspect, I think that, in Majid Khan's case, we should consider his indefinite detention essentially a life sentence. Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WRT whether the copyright holder's intent should matter -- may I describe our use of the first images of Omar Khadr? For several years there were two images of Omar Khadr that were being widely republished by the Press. Both photos predated his capture. One showed him at about 8 or 10 years old. The other showed him at about 14 or 15. There was considerable discussion as to whether we should use either image. Some contributors argued we didn't know the provenance. Other contributors argued that certainly the baby-faced picture, and to a lesser extent the teenage picture, unfairly made him look innocent.
The discussion went back and forth. Then one of the other contributors who lives in Toronto, like I do, sought out Khadr's older sister Zaynab.
How old was he in the older picture? 15 and a half. It was taken just a couple of months prior to his capture.
How did the pictures come to be republished so widely, without credit? Khadr's family were at an event where there were a lot of reporters present. I don't remember what kind of event. But the reporters knew who they were. Khadr's family had prepared copies of the photos, which they gave out to any reporter interested in taking them. They didn't take the reporters' names. They didn't impose any conditions on usage, when they handed out the pictures. Newspapers seemed prepared to treat handing out the images, without imposing conditions, as tantamount to explicitly placing the images in the public domain.
Khadr's family really didn't understand why we had any doubts as to whether we should use those images. But they did go through the steps to explicitly tell us we were free to use those images, and about a dozen additional images from the family album.
So I am inclined to think there are conditions where the copyright holder's intent does matter. I know the law can be counter-intuitive, and patents and trademarks differ from copyright. But patents and trademarks have to be defended. If you don't defend them when other parties violate your rights, you lose them. Didn't kleenex lose their trademark because the courts decided it hadn't been defended vigourously enough, and the term was now understood to refer to any soft tissue paper?
Do you know the story of how the movie It's a wonderful life (1) fell into the public domain; (2) became the well-loved Christmas classic it is today; and (3) how the original copyright holder clawed back ownership of the IP rights at great expense? Well, in the interests of brevity I won't go into that, except to say it shows that, like patents and trademarks, copyright can be lost.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Intent matters for fair use, but our non-free content criteria is explicitly more restrictive than that. Our nod to intent is to in general rule out press agency photos (see WP:NFC#UUI), but widely distributed images don't get a free pass by any means. Also, failing to exercise one's copyright or patent protection does not mean that it can't be exercised in the future, that's only an issue of genericized trademarks. Copyright is only lost when the term expires, which is what happened to It's a Wonderful Life because at that time renewal was required to extend copyright duration and it wasn't renewed. As far as permission goes, we do need it to be explicit as was provided and logged in OTRS for Omar Khadr. Until then, it's non-free content and as I said before, I'm not informed enough about the particulars at the moment to really weigh in on the matter of WP:NFCC#1 in this case, so maybe someone else who's already in the know can speak up. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
After doing some research and seeing that some detainees have been released (e.g. [1]) I see no compelling reason to believe that there will be no free image available in the forseeable future. As is repeated fairly often here, indefinite does not mean forever. Anyone else have an opinion? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That some detainees have been released does not follow that Majid Khan would be released soon. He is in contrast to your example considered a "high-value" detainee. Even if he does not get charged or tried - it is unlikely he will be released ever. The Obama adminstration has made clear their plans to hold about 50 Guantanamo detainees indefinitely. He is most likely one of them. I think the chance that he will be ever released is from very unlikely to zero. IQinn (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Its not a free picture which is what wikipedia is looking for, there may well be a free picture out there, taking this picture as a fair use claim is just weak indeed. There are many pictures of him just we haven't got one. We also do not need a picture, it adds little to nothing, the person is in jail, what does it matter to our article what he looks like, there are pictures of him on the internet if people want to look at one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we don't need a picture doesn't seem to be supported by the community around here, otherwise we would never have a non-free picture of anyone (e.g., the person is dead, what does it matter to our article what he looked like). That said, I came across a source which seems to indicate that not all of the high value detainees are among those identified to be detained indefinitely (the group "including six of the 14 "high-value detainees", not all of them), so I still believe that this fails WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, users love to use the work of other people and claim it as free or fair use. Yes if and when people are dead that is another issue, simply just wanting a picture in an article and not having as free picture is not a fair use claim. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed the PUFC tag because we know it's copyrighted and not free unless/until we get an OTRS release, the question is whether it meets the NFCC which is a completely different question. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • User:VernoWhitney, you cited an Andy Worthington article, and offered an interpretation of that article as a justification for thinking Majid Khan could expect release, not indefinite detention. Your assertion is not consistent with what Worthington actually said. Worthington wrote that new Review Task Force identified 24 of the current captives as “Leaders, operatives, and facilitators involved in terrorist plots against US targets” He says six of the 14 high-value detainees fit this description. Your interpretation that the other eight could expect release is your personal interpretation -- Worthington didn't say that.

    Please bear in mind that the Task Force divided the captives into three groups: (1) Those who are now safe to be released or repatriated; (2) Those for whom there is evidence they actually committed war crimes, who should therefore face trial; (3) Those for whom there is no evidence they committed war crimes, but who, nevertheless are not safe to be released. We know five of the 14 high-value captives transferred from CIA custody on 2006-09-06, don't face indefinite detention without trial, because we know they currently face charges before a Guantanamo military commission. I believe five of those are among the six Worthington mentioned in passage you cited. Geo Swan (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image removed and deleted as orphaned. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:New leads the office.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Screen-grab from an NBC TV production. Seems to be used only for illustrative purposes; not needed for critical commentary or anything. Also check the other uploads of this user; they seem to be currently unused. Lupo 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove: used as decoration especially as the image justification states "To put a screenshot of an episode The Office" which is extremely weak to justify its inclusion. This is a similar reason used for this uploader's other similar images. If it is there for critical commentary, then it should be in that section of the article and the specific image needs commentary as well as that being included in the justification "purpose for use" field of the rationale. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • A few things- the whole episode is about the new leads, so the infobox is an appropriate location for it. This text shows why the image is significant to the episode:
      • "When Dwight (Rainn Wilson) returns from a sales call, he is given a clue that leads him to Kevin (Brian Baumgartner), who tells him that some of the leads are in the trash. However, the trash is empty, so Dwight checks the dumpster, which is also empty. Michael sees that the garbage truck had emptied the dumpster already, so he and Dwight go to the dump to find them."
    • Clearly there is commentary of the image in the article, and I have updated the FUR to reflect its usage.--Terrillja talk 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, in my book, that's not even a mention of that image, which just goes to show that the image is superfluous. The episode can just as well be described in text, without loss. "Critical commentary" would mean that there was some text explaining something about filming technique, or particular noteworthy aspects of production, or something special about make-up or the characters; something that would be very difficult to describe without visual reference. In this case here, I don't see any "fair use", just a plain copyvio. Lupo 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to go too far off into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we have a number of FAs which are very similar to this article, with an infobox image of a significant part of the plot of the episode and discussion of said plot in the article. Not that I'm calling the article an FA by any stretch of the imagination, but if it's good enough to do that for FA, I'd consider this to be a non-issue.--Terrillja talk 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately some FAs have not had their images reviewed critically and those you allude to may fall in that category and as you well know, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not excuse the improper use of non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. This use clearly falls outside acceptable Fair Use. The image is used for illustration and is not the subject of any form of discussion. It simply has a caption which explains what is happening in the picture. All images similarly uploaded and placed by User:Musicfan567 should be removed from their articles and tagged for speedy deletion. __meco (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This image has been deleted, but as pointed out above this is only one of many images which Musicfan567 has uploaded with similar rationales so I'm not closing this discussion yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All images deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sunshine Coast Line logo.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Public Domain is claimed, but uploader admits he/she scanned it from a timetable. Edgepedia (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the image is being claimed as free, you might want to list this at WP:Possibly unfree files. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted as copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Tanzler 68.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} I believe that this image may be superfluous. The article Carl Tanzler has three non-free images in it, two of which could be used under substantially similar defense as asserted for this one, that "wax encased body is no longer available". (The other is File:Tanzer 031.jpg.) This may be true, but the article does not need two images of the wax encased body, and the other one (File:Tanzer 031.jpg) is a better representation of that body. WP:NFCC policy requires "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Too, since there is already a more clear image of the wax-encased body, this one fails "Contextual significance. 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." It was removed from the article and tagged orphaned, here, but the uploader restored it without comment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this image is unneeded, because there is a better image in the article of the wax encased body and yes, this violates non-free content rules. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just when you think you've heard it all....
Yes, there's a strong case to justify a non-free image of Elena, and a valid case for the one Tanzler himself. However this second image is of much less value. Even if we might justify two images of the body that both added something, this image fails that. We should remove File:Tanzler 68.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been a while since this was listed, and there is clear consensus. I will remove the image from the article and tag it as an orphan. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ggenov.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} A portrait image of the actor Georgiy Zhzhonov.

This image was uploaded some time ago, together with other images of Soviet actors, back when FURs were simpler. They were recently tagged for speedy deletion by User:Sfan00 IMG, as their old FUR no longer meets current standards. I provided a FUR for this one, but the other images were deleted.

This account's actions are currently under review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG. As part of that review, the current FUR was challenged here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sfan00_IMG#Outside_view_by_Fut.Perf., with reply here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sfan00_IMG. Further to that, I felt it appropriate to review this FUR through a wider audience here.

FUR for an autobiographical portrait is usually one of the simplest cases, especially when the subject is relatively obscure and now deceased. This one is more complex, as the article carries two images, one a free image. Normally this would breach NFCC, but not I believe in this case. To quote the response at RFC:

This was one of a series of autobigraphical portraits of Russian actors, and autobiographies of demonstrably notable, but obscure, subjects is one of the simplest cases for any FUR. Georgiy Zhzhonov is indeed more complex than that, as it has this fair-use image of the actor in his prime during the 1960s, also a modern free image of the elderly man, receiving an award. This would indeed be a problem for images of most engineers or mathematicians, but an actor trades on their looks and a contemporary photo of them, as they were when acting in their prime is an answer to our question "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" when the only free image is instead of the elderly man.

Your comments please. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an article about the person, and we have a free image of that person. There's something slightly degrading about claiming a picture is only worthwhile if it is him when he was younger. He was still receiving awards in 2000, and the article lists work from 1999- it's not like he was a nobody. The event in the image is even discussed in the short article, not to mention the fact that, looking at the two images, he is still recognisably the same person. If his earlier appearance is so important, which seems to be the basis of your argument for a non-free image, then why is there no sourced discussion of it? If we were talking about someone who was known first and formost for his appearance, then yes, your argument may have some weight, but as it is, I am seeing no justification for the use of a non-free image at all. If it wasn't for the fact this was under discussion, I would remove it on sight... J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly you not only disagree, but you also have so little regard for open review here that you've tagged it for speedy deletion anyway. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Andy but as the article stands there is clearly no justification for using any non-free image in Georgiy Zhzhonov. While he was a actor it is not necessary to have an image that shows how he looked in his prime because there is nothing special about his looks that makes the use of a non-free image justifiable. It just does not comply with all 10 non-free content criteria but it fails both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The only way might be if something special about his appearance was being shown in the non-free image and you would have to provide some critical commentary about that particular image. Right it is just decorating the article. I entirely agree with the deletion nomination. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As for the comment that the file was tagged for speedy deletion while it was under discussion here: If the file were deleted while under discussion at WP:FFD and WP:PUI, the objection might be well taken. But this forum is only a discussion forum—not one like those which reaches a definitive decision after a definite period. Here discussions are closed only when the discussion dies out or the files under discussion are deleted. As explained by J Milburn and ww2censor, the use of this file fails WP:NFCC; so unfortunately the file needs to be deleted, and an off-forum process like tagging it for speedy deletion or nominating it at FFD is the way to do that. So I also agree with tagging it for deletion. —teb728 t c 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:The Master of Game.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This copyright image should be easily replaceable from a free source. No need to use the cover of a book from 2005, its just a facsimile of a book published in 1904. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I go about requesting the above image to be deleted? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Tag it with Template:Di-replaceable fair use which I just did. Garion96 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Green Cardamom (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:DavidKato.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} (Computer acting up - will try to type fast)

This commercial value of this photo is timely. Now is when it's important. I question that the resolution is too high, not for print, but at least for blogs and other similar uses. There are many examples on the 'Net at this moment where either this exact image is used in blogs and news items or a version where the "AP" trademark is still intact. I think the resolution needs to be reduced. I asked about this at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page, but the responder could not offer resoltion guidance, either.

Acceptable use:

  • No free equivalent. --- True, I believe. And I've looked!
  • Previous publication. --- Yes, all over the place both with the AP trademark and a version with the mark cropped off.
  • Contextual significance. --- An article of David Kato is greatly enhanced by a photo of him.

Unacceptable use:

  • A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. --- This is an AP photo.
  • A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. --- This image is highly usable as it is. I think the resolution should be reduced to diminish that ease of usability, but cannot find guidance on the amount of resolution reduction.

Original comments from the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page:

Found these WP statements --- "Defining "low resolution": Examples ---

...magazine cover with a 400 px vertical height is probably large enough to read almost all of the text on the cover of any importance

In cases where the low-resolution images would directly compete with an existing market for low-resolution images, extreme caution should be taken." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use/Definition_of_%22low_resolution%22

In researching Mr kato, I've seen this exact image on various places on the 'Net - newspaper articles and blogs. It seems to be a version of the photo like the one found on this page with "AP" trademark cropped off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8412962.stm

Computer's about to pass out - gotta go - hope these comments aren't too disjointed. Thanks,Wordreader (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a reward board offer for a free image. I know that Thruxton has emailed AP seeking a free image - see User_talk:Thruxton#David_Kato. There are other sources that might offer a free image, such as when he spoke at a university about human rights. EdChem (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The image here was larger than a number of the (supposedly legal) versions of the image that I found online and Google Images top result for an image of "David Kato" was the non-free image here. I used an original version of the image (with the original copyright holder's information -- the AP mark), and shrunk the image down to the size that the Infobox person template was shrinking it anyway, about 220 pixels wide. Banaticus (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The image reduction is a big improvement regarding copyright protection. I don't know if it meets WP's rules, but it's gotta come close, I would think. I wish someone with more WP experience would contribute to this discussion! And remember that no matter who offers up a photo, whether they upload it themselves or give permission to another person to upload it, they will have to submit to WP's requirements.
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials
Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT
Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it, per wP:CSD #7(2). The rule about commercial news agency pictures overrides all other considerations here, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. No further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mark_Bingham1.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} FUR states the pic is historic and used for informational purposes.

  • Historicity is debateable. The source is a tribute website, not a news service, nor a library or museum archive, etc.
  • "Informational purposes", I presume it's the same as educational, is not a valid rationale.

The pic should be deleted. Lionel (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is not replaceable by a free photo, this one might be acceptable for the purpose of identifying the subject of the article. —teb728 t c 09:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Trouble is, we have a well-established general practice that allows non-free photographs of deceased people (because the purpose of showing what the person looked like is deemed to be sufficient to pass NFCC8, provided that commercial interests of the copyright holder aren't infringed on per NFCC2.) However, despite these cases being quite frequent, we have no good standard tag for this situation. The one that is commonly (mis-)used in these cases is the "historic photograph" tag, which is designed for a completely different situation, i.e. the case where the image itself, as a work of photography, is notable and unique and the object of discussion. That is of course not the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
We do have that practice certainly. It is disappointing that the process: want-image -> diligently-search-for-free-image (including trying to get owners of existing images to release) -> fail -> use-nonfree-image is most often done here as have-article -> person-is-deceased -> grab-image-from-somewhere with no evidence of anything else happening. Peripitus (Talk) 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Non-free fair use in|Article}} is a possible tag. —teb728 t c 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark is dead, if a free image is made available then great, meanwhile this one is fine and an ill-formated fair-use has been on the image page from the beginning.STL1989 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Single non-free image for identification of deceased individual retained per general practice. The distinction between {{Non-free historic image}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} is well-taken, but not altered as both are used in general practice. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mark_Bingham2.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} FUR states the pic is historic and used for informational purposes.

  • Historicity is debateable. The source is a tribute website, not a news service, nor a library or museum archive, etc.
  • "Informational purposes", I presume it's the same as educational, is not a valid rationale.
  • This image captures the same subject as above. Having a second non-free image of the same subject is excessive.

The pic should be deleted. Lionel (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. The article would be perfectly understandable without it. —teb728 t c 09:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. No discernible function at all. The subject of the article isn't even recognisable in the photograph – it could be any two random guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. I move that we close discussion and request an Admin to delete the file.Lionel (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh no actually, He is dead and this is one of the few photos we have of him doing his favorite sport for which he is known, Lionelt seems eager to delete any content on gay men but that doesn't make his actions correct. I'll add this to the rugby tournment article named after Mark.STL1989 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This image tells us nothing, neither about him and even less about that tournament. "He used to play football". What concrete, significant factual information does the image convey that isn't conveyed just as well by this simple sentence? Nothing, absolutely nothing at all. And what the heck has being gay to do with anything? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted, no further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Ducis.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Another from the "no rationale" deletion pile.

What is our current line on photographs of nearly 2D works of art? The medal itself was created by E. Catteaux. 1816 is the date of Ducis's death; it seems likely the medal may have been created soon after, as a memorial to be distributed amongst his friends. Certainly this was the time Catteaux was active, so any copyright in the medal design itself is long expired. (The verse "Accord d'un beau talent et un beau caractère" was originally penned by Ducis about a marquis Louis-François de Villeneuve-Trans. It became a celebrated formula; here it is applied to Ducis himself, and it was later applied, eg by Balzac, to others).

Distinct from the medal, the photograph seems to me to essentially functional showing little orginal creative expression, apart from what is quite likely natural lighting from the top. In my view, it on the face of it shows rather less careful planning and set up than would be required to accurately capture a 2d work, per Bridgeman vs Corel. So: does a photograph like show sufficient originality to attract copyright in its own right under U.S. law, do we think?

Unfortunately, there seems to be no indication as to where or when or by whom the photograph was taken. The uploader, Perl (talk · contribs), hasn't edited here for the last three years. I've also looked for it using Tineye and Google Images, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious source -- the only images found seem to be either here or on pages copied from here. It seems to me it would be nice to keep the photo, because the object is illuminative of its subject, and it seems to me the effective copyright taking here is tiny. But again, rather than just slap a Bridgeman notice on it, I thought I'd just offer it up here for wider input and thought first. Jheald (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Mike Godwin, during his tenure as WMF General Counsel, specifically stated that items like photos of coins are not PD by virtue of Bridgeman: [2]. Since a medal bears great similarity to a coin, I'd say that's the opinion that would be the case here. That being the case, there's already a PD image of him in the article, so I can't see using the nonfree medal as well. We can certainly describe in text that he was featured on such a medal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No indication of source or license by uploader, article was retagged as PD by another editor but while that's likely true for the medal as Seraphimblade indicated above, even minor relief elements allow for the creativity needed to make a photo copyrightable. Image deleted as there was no source or license provided by the uploader. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This symbol was used in the Love Symbol Album article to depict the name of the album, as well as the infobox with the artist's albums. User:Hammersoft believes it is not fair use, apparently due to its small size (although I find it readable at that size), and that each use in the article requires a rationale, rather than each article. Since the name of the album is the symbol, there's no possible replacement for it. The use meets every one of the fair use criteria: (1) there's no free equivalent (it's the album name, and the symbol is copyrighted), (2) it doesn't replace the album or prevent the copyright owner from making money - (3) it's used only as the name of the album, four times in the article (and "Love Symbol Album" can be used in some placed to reduce use, just not in the infobox and lead) and it's impossible to use only part of it, (4) it's published on the album cover, (5) it's enyclopedic, as the name of a well-known, notable album, (6) it meets Wikipedia image policies, (7) it's used in at least one article, (8) considering the notability of Prince's name change, and the album title, showing the symbol in the text improves readers' understanding over some made-up textual representation which is a different symbol, (9) it's used only in articles, and (10) the rationales for each article are included (although Hammersoft claims they are inadequate as they do not deal with each use, only each article). If that really is the policy, though, then the solution is not to delete everything, but to tag it and give time to add the rationales. PaulGS (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. This symbol is the album's proper name, so use of the glyph to denote it is entirely appropriate. The copyright taking is minimal, added to which there is clear and universal implied license, because this is how Prince intended his album to be designated. It's technically fair use under our policy, but the use is appropriate because it reflects Prince's choice of how he wanted his album to be designated, and no other title can claim to be "official" in that way. Use of the symbol is therefore justified over any alternative in its clarity and specificity.
Nobody in the world is going to face a copyright problem for using the image in this way. And nobody is going to create some free alternative glyph. This is Hammersoft trying to make a worthless WP:POINT out of pure ideology, and wasting everybody's time. Jheald (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a pretty easy and blatant case. The love symbol is not pronounceable. As such, it can be replaced in text with "love symbol" as has been frequently done in the 'real' world. This makes its use within prose a failure of WP:NFCC #1, being that it can be readily replaced with text that is in common use to refer to the album. Even the very name of the article is "Love Symbol Album". Putting '"Love Symbol Album" -wikipedia' into Google returns nearly 200,000 hits. It's blatantly obvious this album is commonly referred to under this name. Second, the love symbol itself is featured prominently on the album art cover. It's pretty dang hard to miss. As of now [3], we have some editors insisting that we have to have File:Prince logo.svg as a teeny little 12px icon placed above the album art, with at 220px is an order of magnitude larger. We really have to have a 12px icon to convey that this album's title is the love symbol when we have the frapping big version below it?!?!? You note yourself it's published on the album cover. So why the necessity of repeating it...in a 12px form right above it? And to your last point, WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for each use. It doesn't say each article. It says each use. Also, from the same policy #3 requires minimal use. There's no necessity of repeating the image 4 times in the same article, even if you could have a valid rationale for a single use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to the uniqueness of this case (where a non-translatable glyph is being used for the album name), I can only see the use of the image justified twice: Once in the infobox to id the album name (with a subtitle "Love Symbol Album") and a second time in the lead, again for the same identity. For all other purposes, once it is established that the glyph is commonly referred to as "Love Symbol", the text equivalent can be used for all other uses. We all know that the artist is Prince even if he didn't go by that at the time of release, but there's no need to reuse that symbol here for the name. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Comparing this edit, I think something useful would be served by using the glyph instead of the phrase "Love Symbol Album" in the 'chronology' and 'singles' section of the infobox -- I think what would be served would be cementing the idea that the glyph, and not the phrase "Love Symbol Album", was its 'official' title.
    Furthermore, I don't see any useful purpose being served by not so using the glyph. Jheald (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree on that, as minimizing difficult terms to common english is pretty standard for articles based on foreign language works. We don't repeat the official name of the film Spirited Away as "千と千尋の神隠し" throughout the article even though that's the official name. We mention it once and that's it. Similarly, while we have to use the glyph symbol at least once to indicate that's the name of the article, the commonly accepted name "Love Symbol Album" is a fair replacement for all other references to the album on the album page. It's for ease of reader, not to be accurate. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I could see its use once in the lead, but in the infobox it is redundant to the album cover, which features the glyph in very large size, as opposed to the 12px version currently above it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's being used for two different purposes in the infobox. The album cover is to show the cover, not necessarily the album name. It's certainly possible, for someone who doesn't know anything about Prince or this album, that the funny-looking symbol on the cover is just some art, and not the album name, so showing the actual name in the text is important. The chronology shows a list of Prince's albums, and should use the official names. The article has to be titled Love Symbol Album, since nobody can type the symbol, but it should be shown in the chronology. "Love Symbol Album" is not the proper name. PaulGS (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To address another point: what's the consensus on the number of fair use rationales? I read the policy to be that each article needs a rationale, specific to its use in that article, but each use within one article does not, especially when the use (as it would be here) is the same - to properly show the album name, and no free source can replace it. Even if the policy is for each use within the article, the existing rationales should not be deleted, especially while the debate is going on. PaulGS (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Paul, would you be content with the compromise of using the symbol in the lead along with text linking the term "Love Symbol Album" to it, and subsequently using the text? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with using it only in the lead (and "Love Symbol Album" thereafter), but I think it should also be in the infobox, since infoboxes are supposed to present things like facts, statistics, and official information, so the symbol is more appropriate there. PaulGS (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Use in article restricted to two instances: once in the lead and once in the infobox, consensus is clear that inclusion in the lead is appropriate, and that elsewhere is inappropriate. No clear consensus for or against the additional use in the infobox, so will remain as it is. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Slahi.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} To be used for Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a current detainee at Guantanamo. On NFC policies: 1) No free equivalent exists. Slahi's U.S. lawyer has been contacted and confirms this. 3) It is a low resolution image. 4) Published on two other sources Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete it, image is from AP/Getty Images. Clear violation of WP:NFCC#2. — ξxplicit 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That is the credit for the composite photo, which includes pictures of bin Laden, Atta and bin al-Shibh. The photo of Slahi is very likely a yearbook-type picture. More to the point, there is no dispute that the photo is non-free. Rather, the issue is whether it can be used under a fair use exception because no other photo exists. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Image speedily deleted. As there is no evidence of a source besides a press agency, it fails WP:NFCC#2 (see WP:NFC#UUI #7). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Albert Richter (German Track Cyclist, 1912-1940).jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Please see

Image deleted, no further action required. No consensus for retention. No explanation of why the free image is not equivalent (i.e. what is shown in the non-free image that is not shown in the free image and cannot be adequately conveyed by text?). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Northcott booking.gif

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} It is disputed whether or not this file qualifies for {{PD-USGov}}, but it is currently marked as non-free. There's also a Commons version, where there was/is a debate over the licensing. My concern is that the resolution of this image may be too large. It's poor-quality B&W, but it's 928x1,110 pixels. Thoughts? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing resolution with image size. A low resolution image can be any size. Resolution is the amount of visual information contained in the image no matter what the image size is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have asked about this here. Hopefully we'll get some input soon. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The image is still far too large. It can be reduced in half both directions and still be clear what it is showing. We use low resolution images, low enough so the reader can understand the non-free image and not anything larger. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I just tried to fix this by uploading a cropped version, but I get this error message: "File extension does not match MIME type." Jsayre64 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It finally let me crop the image. How's the size now? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Question only regards the appropriateness of size, not use. As no significant detail is lost by further reducing the cropped image, it has been scaled down per WP:NFCC#3. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor - Svayambh detail.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This image is used on Anish Kapoor, the artist who made the artwork. It's a 3d artwork, block of red wax that moves around the museum, a temporary artwork. It's thus not a 2d artwork, and should be considered non-free media. Would like someone else to review before I make appropriate changes. — raekyT 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is free or non-free is really neither here nor there, because there is no author and no source for us to determine the copyright status as claimed by the uploader. While there is no metadata the image size is quite large so could have been taken by the uploader and not just copied from a website, but a source would determine that. Indian law allows photography under freedom of panorama per commons:COM:FOP#India so if the image is copyright it will fail WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from the article, "In 2007, he showed Svayambh (which can be roughly translated as 'self-generated'), a 1.5 metre carved block of red wax that moved on rails through the Nantes Musée des Beaux-Arts as part of the Biennale estuaire; this piece was shown again in a major show at the Haus Der Kunst in Munich and in 2009 at the Royal Academy in London. Kapoor's recent work increasingly blurs the boundaries between architecture and art." So it was never shown in India, it was shown in France, Germany and the UK, so depending on where that photo was taken... Yes we'd need a source. — raekyT 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we cleared up sourcing, it's his own photograph, now it says it was taken at Royal Academy in London, what is the Freedom of Panorama for UK laws? — raekyT 10:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we're good according to commons:COM:FOP#United_Kingdom that there is no FOP concerns for images shot in the UK. — raekyT 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the UK FOP is for 3D artworks that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public—wasn't this a temporary installation, and therefore not covered by the UK FOP law?—Jeremy (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Because it says "or in premises open to the public" it means permanent or temporary in a place open to the public, like the museum it was in. Since it was in a place open to the public it should be ok with UK FOP law. That is my understanding of it... — raekyT 16:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it depends on where you place the stress in the sentence. Does the permanent apply to both places or just the first? Is it "permanently situated in a public place or [situated] in premises open to the public", or is it permanently situated in a "public place or in premises open to the public". My understanding was that the latter is the case. —Jeremy (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
True, it needs better worded, but if you read further down about some of the court cases that has made some items questionable, like items of dinnerware which is clearly not a permanent placement, so obviously I think it means temporary in public places as well. Maybe open up a talk page topic about rewording that to be more explicit to prevent confusion like this. — raekyT 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether the Royal Academy allows photography at exhibitions ? If so I'll be pleasantly surprised. If they don't does that change anything for this image ? The reason I ask is that galleries in London are not very camera friendly to say the least. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
True, if cameras are banned then it would probably be not open to the public in the sense the law is meaning.... — raekyT 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This article would suggest not: [4] —Jeremy (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Quoting, "Photography is not permitted in the Anish Kapoor exhibition owing to copyright issues." This photo does look like it was shot surreptitiously. Might need nominated for deletion based on this... — raekyT 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The Commons policy seems to be my interpretation: "The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public" (my emphasis). This would seem to rule out temporary exhibits (begs the question though—how long does something have to be displayed before its display is considered permanent?). —Jeremy (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
True... a lot of unknowns there... — raekyT 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This guide is helpful.[5] There are two parts to the current issue: 1. the taking of the photo 2. the subject of the photo. Regards 1. it is private property, but the photographer was (presumably having bought a ticket) legitimately on it. You are allowed to take photos on private property, unless asked not to. Was he asked not to? This could be either printed on the admission ticket, displayed on a sign, or a verbal request. If any of these apply, taking of the photo constitutes trespass, and he can be asked to leave, but his film and camera cannot be taken. It is also likely he could not be prevented from using the picture taken. If he was not asked to refrain from photography, then there does not seem to be a problem. Note (IIRC) photography is allowed within the RA building(s) generally. 2. Is the work copyright? Probably, but this could be a fine legal point, as to whether what was on display was copyrightable (the shape of the wax pushed through a doorway). Conclusion: the taking of the photograph is an issue between the photographer and the venue, and not our responsibility. Regards the copyright of the object, we should, failing other advice, err on the side of caution and consider it to be copyright. There is a legitimate case for fair use of the image under our WP:NFC criteria, as this shows an important aspect of the artist's use of materials, not otherwise illustrated in the article on him. TINLA. Ty 09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The museum may try to impose conditions on visitors; but it is not clear that that creates any contract with Wikipedia, as to what WP might or might not do with a photograph once taken and released into the wild. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The museum’s restriction would be our problem if it means the display is not public within the meaning of the law as suggested above in raeky’s 17:02, 2 August 2010 post. Perhaps more importantly the fact that the work has recently been in Nantes and Munich, together with the Royal Academy spokesman’s saying as quoted here that it is on loan indicates that it is not on permanent display. If the display is not permanent and/or not public, FOP does not apply. —teb728 t c 12:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing as no consensus. This discussion seems to have concluded that the image is likely in violation of the artist's copyright because of the "permanently located" clause of UK copyright law, and because of possible conditions of entry. However, in the many months which this discussion has been open there has been no substantive discussion of whether or not the image is acceptable under WP:NFCC, only a credible indication that it might be. The next step would appear to be to tag the image as non-free and request a fair use rationale, which I will now WP:BOLDly do. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Plo emblem.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This image has an alleged rationale for various articles, but I do not believe the repeated use of an icon in infoboxes is compliant with policy. O Fenian (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs a separate FUR for each use, but I'm inclined to include it on articles where there were multiple forces in a battle as it shows that not all of the forces were necessarily from the same organization without taking up too much space in the infobox. I don't want to see it being used for purely decorative purposes, but in the limited space of a conflict infobox, it gives the reader a better idea of the involved parties at a glance.--Terrillja talk 10:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Eleven uses but only one rationale is unacceptable. Its use may well be useful to a reader's understanding but needs fixing if kept in those other articles. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Image use reduced to two articles, both with individual FURs. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Monica - Here I Am (featuring Trey Songz).jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Violates criteria 3a and 8. Basically the same as File:Monica - Here I Am.jpg, only the words 'Featuring Trey Songz' are on the cover. Both are used in the article Here I Am (Monica song), suggest removal and subsequent deletion. Acather96 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that adding another version of the cover with another name on does not add anything significant to the understanding of the subject and clearly is not minimum use.--SabreBD (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
These are too similar to pass all WP:NFCC criteria; one or the other but not both under 3a. ww2censor (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Update the first with this one, delete this one I think the File:Monica - Here I Am.jpg image should be updated with the "featuring Trey Songz" version (as a version that contains more information and is more likely to be useful in future articles). Then the "featuring..." image should be deleted. Banaticus (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Update: first image replaced Banaticus (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate image removed from article and deleted. The remaining image contains both versions in history. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago344 comments13 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Conversation about the use of this image in Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 14 VernoWhitney (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy states: Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).
In this article, the picture is being used to discuss the event (and not the photo itself). USchick (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The claim being made is that the image is not the subject of commentary. I originally took that to mean commentary in the media, but I believe the objection is that the image is not being discussed in the Wikipedia article where it is used. Although the image was in a section where only the event and not the image was mentioned, the immediately subsequent section of the Wikipedia article currently includes:
The photo of Saeed's corpse was released onto the internet in June of 2010, causing a large outcry and the creation of a Facebook memorial page for Saeed that has attracted hundreds of thousands of followers, becoming Egypt's biggest dissident Facebook page.[12] It was because of the photo and the heavy amount of international criticism that arose from the incident that the Egyptian government consented to a trial for the two detectives involved in his death.[13] Human Rights Watch released a press report about the photo that stated, "Photos of Said's battered and deformed face published on the internet show a fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma" and also that the image clearly showed "strong evidence that plainclothes security officers beat him in a vicious and public manner."[7]
On those 'transformative' grounds, I do not see a need for the image to be in the exact section where the image is discussed; but if that were required, the simple solution would be switching the image currently in that section and replacing it with the image under dispute. Either way, I don't see grounds for keeping the image out of the article.
Moreover, as the image's non-free-use rationale states: "It significantly adds to the understanding of the event, since such an event is hard to visualise...no photograph could possibly replace this image...it is historical in this context... It illustrates police brutality during Hosni Mubarak's presidency." This image was essential to the revolution in Egypt, as an artifact of the event, and as a critical thing in its own right. The image is what was spread from computer to computer among protesters. That is discussed in the article and is a crucial part of the significance of Saeed's death. Without this image the revolution in Egypt might not have happened. That is not an overstatement. To keep the image out of the article is to leave readers bereft of fully comprehending the uniquely shocking nature of the photograph and a full understanding of its role. Ocaasi (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The copyright policy is clear on appropriate use. If you feel strongly about this picture being instrumental in the unfolding events of the Egyptian Revolution, please create an article specifically for this picture and use it there (and only there). Its current use in this article is against Wiki policy. USchick (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really struggling with the particular degree of literalism you're abiding by.
  1. You're saying if there were an article titled [Image of Khaled Saeed] it would be fine?
  2. But in the article about his death, which is the only reason the image is notable, it's not?
  3. If there were a sub-section of the Death of Khaled Saeed article titled 'Photograph of his death', would it then be ok?
  4. What if instead of there being a section header with that title there was just article content which specifically addressed the content of the image and its significance?
The last question is the current situation, and I don't see why your interpretation isn't wrong in both spirit and letter. Whether an image is being commented on does not depend on the name of the page or the section. The article clearly addresses the image. Therefore the image is the subject of commentary. Therefore this exclusionary claim does not stand, even if you accept the premise that copyright would prevent the image being used to depict the event itself, or the image itself. Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand the seemingly minor difference. However, US and international copyright law is very clear on this, and that's why the policy is written the way it is. Similar situations came up, and I'm trying to find one as an example. Appropriate use in this case, is to create an article about the photo. Then you can use the image under "fair use" in that article ONLY. USchick (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The title of the new article would have to be appropriate, such as "Post mortem photo of Khaled Saeed" and not just "Image of Khaled Saeed." All other rules apply, incliding notability of the subjectmatter. Thank you for taking this seriously. USchick (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a confusion here between the policy and guidelines. The use of the photo clearly meets all 10 of the requirements of the policy (correct me if I'm wrong), but the guideline prohibited example "#7 A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article," is being cited. First we need to establish that this is or isn't from a press agency. I'd guess it isn't, rather being a "historical" photograph whose origin may never be known for certain. Note that there is NO REQUIREMENT for a separate article on the photo itself, just the guideline "the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." In short, as used the photo seems to be ok, and folks should not quote policy that does not exist. Smallbones (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of Wiki policy, but US and international copyright law as it pertains to journalism. I have to go for now, but I'll be back later. USchick (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't going to sound right, but our policy supersedes US copyright law. Let me rephrase that: our policy is designed around US copyright law. If the policy isn't in line with it, then the policy needs to change before individual images are removed under direct reference to the law. So if there is a claim here, it seems to be a far broader one that needs to be taken up at WP:Copyright rather than with the Saeed image. Also, I still dispute the difference a separate title makes. For the life of me, even if I put my litigious hat on, it doesn't make a whit of difference. A commentary on an image under any other heading smells as sweet, or something like that...
And I just want to be clear: the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. That does not mean require that the photo is the titular subject of the article. Very different thing. Ocaasi (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also want to be clear, this is an issue that falls under very clear international laws that address:

  • International laws in journalism (When the image can be used, specifically showing dead people)
  • International copyright (How the image can be used)
  • International property (Who can use the image)

Used in this article, it is against international law (more than one) and creates an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation. USchick (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia at all. SilverserenC 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ocaasi has made the exact same argument that I would have, though a bit more eloquently than I would, I think. The image is the source of direct commentary in the article by multiple sources, it is a historical image that is one of the major reasons for the starting of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and it also illustrates something that could not adequately be explained in prose. It is not a press release, I know that for a fact. It is entirely unknown where the image comes from, other than the fact that it popped up on the internet one day. Considering that it was taken in the morgue, the likely option is that it was taken by the forensic examiner or by an intern at the morgue and then smuggled out and put up on the internet. SilverserenC 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand that this is much bigger than just copyright, and just because an image shows up on the internet, that does not give you "fair use" or any other right to use it. There's a very good reason why it wasn't picked up by international media –– because it is ILLEGAL under international law. I really do have to go now. USchick (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to beat the issue over, but it seems you might not realize the legal status here. It's not "fair use" it's Fair Use, and US copyright law is very clear that copyright ends where fair use begins. It's a gray area at times, but the concept of fair use is not a Wikipedia invention. It's U.S. Federal statute backed by Supreme Court decision. Fair Use as well as WP:Fair Use are worth checking if you haven't yet. And if you have, apologies, but I'm trying to make the point that your argument seems to be based in a different reading or a different law. Ocaasi (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Found the source

I just did a heavy-duty Google news search about the photograph and I found the source of it, as described in this Washington Post article. It states that "Finding that account suspicious, relatives bribed a guard at the morgue to take a photo of the corpse. It showed Said's skull had been cracked and his face disfigured." Clearly, this means that it was his relatives who uploaded the photo to the internet and disseminated it. SilverserenC 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that, now please have them go back and remove the copyright tag on the uploaded photo. USchick (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you agreeing that there isn't a copyright violation here? SilverserenC 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Please go back and look at the article in the Washington Post. To write a description about the photo in question, they had to see the photo. Don't you think they wanted to use it? Probably much more than you want to use it, because they could sell more papers AND be the first to break the story in the media. Don't you think they REALLY wanted to use it? And yet, they didn't. Doesn't that tell you something? I'll be back later. USchick (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think, for most newspapers, they wouldn't want to put an image of that nature in there anyways. They don't have WP:NOTCENSORED like we do, they do censor their images for nudity and graphic violence. SilverserenC 22:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
SilverSeren, that was good research, but I think it's granting too much ground anyway. Since the image is the subject of commentary in the article. Fair Use images are allowed so long as: 1) Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria (all 10 are overwhelming fits); It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (absolutely), It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law (very much so).
USchick, International Copyright law is not binding on English Wikipedia, since its servers are located in the state of Florida in the US. To my knowledge, the only legal concern is whether or not the Foundation can be sued for including the image. Since the image is permissible under US law, that's pretty much all that matters. The fact that it's also permissible under Wikipedia policy means that there's really no grounds for this debate. I don't want to be a no-A-G-F'er here, but USchick did broach the issue initially with intent to remove the image for non-copyright reasons, and then seemed to discover its perceived copyright infringement as a perfunctory way to keep it out. That's not quite a fair assumption, and certainly has no bearing on the copyright discussion itself, but is it possible there are broader objections to the image which we might address? Ocaasi (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I was just interested in the source behind the photo anyways and now we can use that Washington Post article in the photograph section to explain some more of the history behind it. I'm sure our readers are just as curious where the photograph came from. SilverserenC 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely worth including. Ocaasi (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This photo is not permissible under US law or any other law. The issue here is that the person is dead in the photo. Its use is highly regulated ––– who can use it, for what purpose, under what conditions. I am not an attorney, but if you want to use it, please find one. In the meantime, it is a copyright violation to use this photo in an article that is not about the photo itself. USchick (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
See Ocaasi's response in the section above. SilverserenC 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You're not listening. This is a dead person. USchick (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that this image falls under "Images with iconic status or historical importance" for Fair Use. SilverserenC 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and you saying that does not change anything. USchick (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain how it doesn't? SilverserenC 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I will go look for a specific legal case if you want. My personal opinion here is not the issue, like you suggest on the talk page. The use of dead people in photos are highly regulated. I will go find something more specific. Peace. :) USchick (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Specific legal cases have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. You will have to show where in Wikipedia policy it says that images of dead people cannot be used. SilverserenC 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Split claims

It seems this debate has broken down along separate arguments:

  • One, unstated, that the image is wrong for non-policy or non-legal reasons. (I'm waiting to address this, but it can wait)
  • Two, that 'subject of commentary' means 'title of article'. (This is not an insane reading but it appears unsupported by anyone else and unintended by the policy and the law. What difference would it make if it was titled or not?)
  • Three, that dead people receive special protections in images about them. This has been debated at length, and while dead people deserve an immense amount of care in how their legacies are handled, I believe several clear points make that moot here:
    1. The image itself is of epic historical significance.
    2. The image is reproduced widely and easily accessible through media. We're not breaking the levee by including it.
    3. The image does no disrespect to the subject; rather it does honor to Saeed by not letting the crime against him be swept away.

USchick has expressed intent to go find case-law addressing the deceased-image issue. The initial copyright infringement claim was raised on the merits of the 2nd, and I removed the photo pending our discussion. Since that claim appears to not be sufficient, I intend to replace the image. Any legal insights which weigh on the photos of the deceased can be dealt with whenever they are brought up, and the image can be removed during that time. I would emphasize that any such case law would have to go through WP:Policy first, so it would likely be a long time before the Saeed article could be impacted. More reason to re-add the photo while research and debates are conducted. Any objections to that? Ocaasi (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (added earlier, forgot to sign)

I agree, let's take one issue at a time. My main point is the copyright issue. If we can resolve that, I'm fine with everything else. Please show where in a credible media outlet, the photo was used. Then if you can use the same photo without infringing on copyright, please use the SAME photo. It is not appropriate to see one photo and claim "fair use" of a totally different photo used somewhere else. What do you think about that? USchick (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a common objection in arguments where the target of discussion keeps moving. Let's try and keep them clear. If we're focusing on copyright, I see:
  • Subject = Title
  • Credible media outlet
  • Photo must match the media outlet
I think the third is reasonable, the second is negotiable but easily complied with, and the first is incorrect. Is there agreement on that? Ocaasi (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you asking for an image in a credible source to prove that this is of him? SilverserenC 01:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying this part is under question: "The image is reproduced widely and easily accessible through media." Can we please find a credible media source (not a blog) using the photo. Then let's use the SAME photo without infringing on copyright. Looking at one photo and claiming "fair use" on another one is like being married to one person and sleeping with another one and claiming "fair use." :) USchick (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Digital images do not share the kind of clear pedigree as a non-digital photo. This thing has been copied and pasted all over the world. The best we can do, and more than is required, is to find the source which most credibly gets close to the original--actually, whichever source is representing a copyright, that's the one we should take ;p. Just kidding, but it is true that in order for a fair use claim to apply, it has to be under copyright. Ocaasi (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If it was uploaded by one of his family members so the world would see it, I doubt they uploaded it under any sort of copyright claims, since they would be encouraging reproduction of it. And if they uploaded it to any sort of photo website, it would be close to impossible to track down the original upload. SilverserenC 02:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Digital or not, a living person owns their likeness. The estate of a dead person owns the likeness of a dead person. Even if the family released the image in an attempt to start a revolution, "fair use" does not extend past that. The right to publicity is the issue in this case. I'm looking this up. The person who snapped the photo owns the copyright. The photo can be used in journalism in very limited cases. That's why I'm saying find the image used in journalism and see if you can use the SAME photo without infringing on their copyright. This would be "fair use." USchick (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that the estate of Khaled Saeed cannot themselves relinquish exclusive ownership to this photo, even if that's explicitly what they did. If a media organization took up the photo, we indeed can use that image, since it had not copyright claim to begin with. The Medical Examiner does not 'own' the photo if he gave it to the family--also, Egyptian copyright law is not our jurisdiction. All we know is Fair Use in the US as applied to images of historic significance in the media. You seem to be asking us to verify a chain of custody that is neither practical or required by Wikipedia policy regardless of your particular reading of copyright law. Ocaasi (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Legal recognition of postmortem rights of publicity permits a decedent’s named beneficiaries or heirs to control the use of a deceased personality’s image and likeness.

I'm asking you to use a photo that you legally can claim is "fair use." Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean it's appropriate, legal, or "fair use." USchick (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that USchick withdraw his request for deletion and come back here or another page when he can properly formulate a reason for his proposed deletion. Originally he proposed the deletion based on a non-existant policy. Now he has switched to international law on photos of dead folk. The 2nd argument doesn't belong here, but perhaps at the talk page on the policy itself. It's clear that according to the fair use guideline examples that this is acceptable under "#8 Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."

Failing withdrawal of the request for deletion, I ask for an immediate close as "keep." There's just no policy or even guideline justification for deletion. Smallbones (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The request is based on a copyright violation. Fair use has not been established. Please provide a credible media source where THIS SAME photo was used. USchick (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, USchick is not a he, not that she needs me to point it out, but it seems painfully ironic for editors who go out of their way not to hide their gender to still be lumped in with he's.
I'm interested in this claim as an exercise in copyright argument, but I think you have no real claim to begin with. You have presented that the family of Khaled Saeed own the rights to this photo. Yet it is undisputed that they distributed the photo in order to publicize his death. So the original photo is not under any claim of copyright. You've asked for "the same image" to be identified, but there is no such provenance. The earliest link I can find is to this Egyptian blogger: http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2010/06/for-khalid-for-his-family-and-for-egypt.html, who apparently was personally involved in activism and may have known Saeed personally, I can't tell. Regardless, it doesn't matter. We can use that photo, which is not under an explicit copyright claim (Although it's posted at Blogspot, which is an American operation under Google, and American photos have a default copyright ab initio). And we can use that photo with a copyright claim under fair use. The only reason we couldn't use that photo would be that the blog is not from an WP:RS, but the image itself is still not in dispute.
It doesn't matter that the photo is not from a 'credible' news source, since there is no case that the photo is not what it is purported to be. Moreover, you've created a double-bind, since if we use a photo closer to the original, it will not be 'credible', but if we use one further away there will not be a link. So we can find a more credible source, but then you have to be flexible with the chain of fidelity issue, which has no bearing on anything since the image's credibility is not in question.
You're making an interesting academic argument that we should know exactly where an image came from and exactly how it has been distributed, but frankly, Wikipedia policy doesn't require that. And in setting the bar higher than policy, you deserve commendation and possibly a seat at the Policy Discussion table, but really not much else. So, what's your preference, un-credible blog, credible untraceable reproduction, or WP:RFC?
I'm not trying to be difficult. To establish fair use, please provide a credible media source where it is being used. If this photo is NOT being picked up in the media, don't you think there is a legal reason for this? It has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with who can and can not publish pictures of dead people. USchick (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the mainstream media has a long history of concealing the grotesque nature of war and death in general. To be frank, it doesn't sell copies, and my initial objection to having the photo exposed is that it would turn away readers as well. But Wikipedia is better than to have to be hindered by commercial concerns. Many images exist that don't get published in major newspapers. That doesn't mean we can't use them as long as they meet other criteria. Ocaasi (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Journalism is not a "commercial concern." Where have you seen this photo besides "on the internet" where "everyone is doing it"? USchick (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Point of order: the last time I did a search, it appeared this image was published widely in media in Egypt. Remember, only Western media has a taboo against showing dead bodies. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Journalism is very much a commercial concern, when journalists work for corporations, aim for ad dollars, and have to maintain readership in order to stay relevant. I like journalism very much, but it exists in a market of dollars and attention like anything else. Not to be snide, but "on the internet" is where the entire revolution began, and it is where the photo became iconic. The photo is a primary source which can be used to augment the myriad reliable secondary sources that reference it directly. It doesn't matter much where we get the photo from, as long as there's no question of its validity. You've argued that legal recognition of post-mortem rights is the issue, but also that we need to find a credible source. What does the beginning of the chain have to do with the end?
  • Do you agree that the family gave up copyright when they distributed in the image?
  • Do you agree that blogs replicated and shared an accurate image?
  • Do you agree credible sources were all describing the same photography, regardless of which site it happened to be posted on?
  • Do you agree there are valid fair use claims for historic images such as this even when they are under copyright?
Then what is the problem, exactly? Is it just the 'chain of custody issue'? I'd like this to be clear, since it is now the fourth or fifth benchmark you have requested we meet. Ocaasi (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not authorized to use this image in this article. There are a VAST number of reasons why you can't use it. The one we're going with right this minute is copyright infringement.

1. Describing a photograph with words is not the same thing as showing the photograph. No one is stopping you from describing it.
2. Because the person featured in the photo is dead, there are rules governing its use. YOU, (yes you!) are not authorized to use it.
3. If someone else has used it appropriately, (and you have to show that they did) THEN you may be able to claim "fair use." This has not happened. USchick (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Fair Use permits the image being used if no description can take its place. Not for nothing, but the revolution didn't galvanize around 'a paragraph'.
2. The families of dead people involved in photographs of great historical significance do not have exclusive rights to those photographs prohibiting Fair Use. Again, Fair Use is a legal exception. Seriously, please read WP:Fair Use and Fair Use. The very notion of Fair Use is inherently connected to someone's copyright. In this case, it is either the copyright of the family, or of a re-publisher. It does matter how sacrosanct a dead person's legacy is, no family can legally prevent a photo of their loved-one being used in Fair Use if that image has become widely distributed and is itself a significant part of history, and Wikipedia won't prevent its use if it is relevant and not a WP:BLP violation. Not to mention that this objection is baseless anyway, since it was the family who released and promoted distribution of the photograph.
3. So, the only claim left is over the issue of directly sourcing the image, or showing its chain of copyright. Ocaasi (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Wall of text, so here are simple questions to figure out how this can be used:

  • First, we appear to all agree it is not a freely licensed file, so we have to look at WP:NFCC.
  • Is this a press agency photograph? The reason this is important and why its called out as an unacceptable image use is that press agencies exist to dissiminate photographs for profit. If it is a press agency photo, it fails #2. The only allowable case would be an article that discusses that specific image in depth. Given what I'm reading, that's not likely to happen (see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for an example where we do have an article on a press agency photo.
  • There is a possibility this photo was illegally sent around the Internet. If that is proven to be the case, we can't use it, period. Let other sites use it, but WP needs to keep its hands clean if that's the case.
  • Assuming we've passed the above, the question becomes, does adding this picture aid in the reader's understanding to consider it an exception to NFCC rules? Part of that question is if we really need to show the battered head of a victim to draw attention to the article when it really doesn't need it. We're not talking about censoring here, but using a decorum of sense that, hey, people looking for information on this probably don't need to see the battered photo to get an idea for what happened to the victim. My take, given everything else, is no, its not needed. Text is sufficient to describe that this person was killed brutally. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Can I go to bed now? :) USchick (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


I guess i'll answer this in order.
1. Agreed, we've been treating it as a non-free file this entire time anyways.
2. No, it is not. If you read the discussion above, you'd see that the photo was uploaded onto the internet by Saeed's relatives after bribing a guard at the morgue to take the photograph for them. It is not a press agency photo at all.
3. Since it would be owned by the relatives and they purposefully uploaded it and disseminated it, it wouldn't be illegal. See Ocaasi's search up above for where he tracked the earliest version he could find of it to.
4. As we've explained before, yes. It is a highly important photo that is one of the main catalysts for the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The photo is the catalyst, not just his death. The argument on whether it is graphic was already looked at and discarded during the Deletion review of the image. Multiple users have stated that graphicness has nothing to do with an image of such importance as this. SilverserenC 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so to me, everything comes down to the 3rd point, the legality of the image. I'm not 100% convinced that a photo taken as a bribe is perfectly legal; it is similar in natural to the legality of the Wikileaks documents - it was information never meant to be seen outside a specific set of eyes but managed to do so anyway. (The fact that the photo is "copyright" by the family is immaterial - if it's not something that was legally photographed, the copyright is null & void). --MASEM (t) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that is the main thing to discuss then. Though how does the legality affect Fair Use policy exactly? As it is already an image that has been disseminated and used across the internet and media, does legality even apply at this point? And we already answered the question on the Wikileaks documents with the prior RfC, so if you're trying to use that as an example... SilverserenC 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright, fair use, and the right to publish are all related, but separate issues. The person who snapped the camera owns the copyright. In this case, it doesn't matter because he is not using it for profit. And he can't use the image without the family's permission, for any reason. The family has the legal say as to how the photo can be used. Because the person in the photo is a corpse, there are additional regulations. Even if the family released the photo for a particular use (to start a revolution), that use expired when the revolution started, or in any case, the family did not release the photo to be used on Wikipedia or anywhere else to be used indefinitely. Fair use may be an option, IF fair use can be established. If someone credible is using the photo appropriately, perhaps you can also rationalize fair use of that specific photo. USchick (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me compare it to something similar: the Sony PS3 hack code. Per the system's EULA, it was illegal for it to be discovered, despite the fact that after it was, it was sent around the internet far and wide, including unintentionally to a Twitter account from Sony. And that it is technically information you can find for yourself with the right toosl. That information is not copyright - its restricted, and despite it being in the open, legally we would never publish that on WP - talk about it, yes, but not publish it.
This photo is not quite the same thing but again it is all tied to if taking that photo within the secured facility was allowed or not. If unofficial photography was disallowed, then its an illegal photo, and its not our place to redistribute that, even if it is on 90% of the web otherwise. (It is not a matter of who owns the copyright - the family or the bribed person that took it) Basically we can't republish material gotten by illicit means even if the rest of the world doesn't view it like that. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So, how exactly do we determine this sort of thing? And is a morgue really considered a secured facility? SilverserenC 05:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone, outside of any official capacity, go in and take a picture of the battered body? Was a special case being made to prevent photos of the body here? Not to take away from the victim's importance, but if this was any random body, would it have been possible to get a photo of the body, one that could be disseminated by the copyright owner without problems? --MASEM (t) 05:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the question exactly. SilverserenC 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If all other things were equal and this victim was a random person, not tied to any major international issue, would someone have been able to take a photograph of him legally while in the morgue? I could argue that if they were making a special case of this victim but would have allowed it otherwise, its likely less a problem (much like how some US photographers are challenged when they take pictures of secured facilities that are otherwise completely free to do). If the morgue was a "no photos, ever" place, and a photo was taken, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But I don't know how to determine that. I would expect a morgue to normally allow photos if relatives asked for it. Of course, it's probably not something relatives generally ask for as it is. SilverserenC 06:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Might I ask what specific Wikipedia legal policy we're dealing with here for such a thing? SilverserenC 06:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this case: Out of the darkroom, into the limelight: Thomas Condon breaks his silence - In part: Condon was convicted in October 2001 on eight counts of gross abuse of a corpse for taking photos of corpses in the county morgue. On April 16, he was sentenced to serve two and a half years in prison. See also: Morgue ‘Art’ Cost Taxpayers $8 Million. And related to this overall - Andres Serrano became most notorious through his photos of corpses yet the Wikipedia article uses no such images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Masem, your questions about the legality of the photographs initial transfer are highly influenced by the context:
One, this happened in Egypt, which was a military dictatorship. If the photo was 'not supposed to leave the morgue' it may well have been under regime dictate to conceal police brutality. If journalism doesn't at minimum exist to subvert that, then we're all f#kd.
Two, in Egypt, there are different Fair Use laws, and trying to interpret or divine how US law would view the transfer of the photo from the morgue is confusing those two sets of laws. Even suggesting that the family had rights to the photograph is probably imposing a US-centric view. I bet Mubarak would have said that the photo belonged to the regime, despite US legal precedent that families own images of their deceased relatives.
Three, the family released the image to the world, in an attempt to publicize Saeed's death. This image itself--and not just the event which led to it--was uploaded and shared among bloggers, passed along through social networks and email lists, laid the groundwork for the entire revolution. It is extremely historically significant. That very image has been described in countless very mainstream RS news sources which happened to not include the photo. On RS grounds, we can include the photo as a 'primary source' under WP:BLPPRIMARY.
Finally, chain of custody for a free image becomes trivial once initial fair use has been established. If we assume that the family did have rights to the image, which they released for personal and political reasons, then it doesn't matter where the image ended up or which copy we use, since they all trace back to the family. Moreover, even that is not necessary, since--hypothetically--even if the family did not want the image released, and even if multiple news outlets claimed copyright to the image as they presented it--there would still be a fair use claim to support including one of those photos. Which photo we choose is not only arbitrary but irrelevant. Any will do because fair use covers all of them, as they are meaningfully indistinguishable--they are all the same photo.
So we have two choices, either of which are completely permitted by Wikipedia policy: 1) we can use the photo closest to the family--the most proximate Egyptian blog I have found is listed in the section above; or 2) we can use the image taken from the most credible news source it was published in. Either one is sufficient, and that we can't combine the benefits of both is irrelevant since doing so is I think more than policy requires. Ocaasi (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not at all talking about fair use issues. I am asking: does this picture exist legally? Everything everyone's said makes it sound like there was no way - without illegal means of bribery - to take a photo of the body and publish it. I'm trying to determine if this was any other person in any other state in that morgue if pictures would have been allowed anyway. I don't question that if there's no legal problem with the origin of the image that it is appropriate to use at WP after that. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Generally, a law which prohibited a family from photographing their own deceased would not withstand scrutiny. Bribery is illegal just about everywhere, but bribery to circumvent unjust laws in an effort to expose human rights abuses is at least something we should consider ignoring in the interest of our encyclopedic, educational, and generally human mission. Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines

  1. As this is an image the first thing is the Image use policy. In that context one important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not in the "business" to simply be exploitative. Wikipedia is not supermarket tabloid fodder. The policy Rules of thumb even indicates that - Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article.
  2. Now lets go further. Yes it is true, Wikipedia is not censored, but that is not the guiding policy at play here. This is an image, and if it is determined if this image is acceptable use per the Image use policy the next step to see how. Lets presume the image is "legal" and it is under a copyright that the uploader does not own. For that an editor can go to the Fair use images section of the policy and read that not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. (See number 1 above) If it is "appropriate" than go to the Non-free content criteria, which is based around the United State copyright laws that govern fair use - but using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law. So lets toss out any discussion that this may be ok via the real world.
  3. Is this being distributed via a commercial content provider? In other words, right now if a paper were to use this image where would they "legally" obtain it? If they have to pay to use it than it fails Number 2 - Respect for commercial opportunities.
  4. If the information above is correct this is being (or was) distributed "by the family". However as the family did not upload it here it still must be used under the same policy requirements. In which case a few obvious ones pop up. First is related to number 1 above. Criteria number 6 - Media-specific policy. Due to the nature of the image is it being used to to bring attention to an article? If so it fails. Next is the infamous Criteria number 8 - Contextual significance. In most all cases this is meant to require some sort of sourced commentary on the image itself as it relates to the overall image (what is contained in the image). In other words is the material needed to understand the text contained in the article itself. In the most simple terms - if text said "fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma" is an image needed in order to understand those words?
  5. Taking all of the above into account Offensive images reaffirms the same points by saying Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
  6. Wikipedia:Offensive material expands on that.

There has always been much debate on what is "needed" and what isn't. For a comparison look at the John F. Kennedy assassination article. Certainly it could be argued showing the frame of Zapruder's film where the fatal shot hits is a must in the article - but yet it isn't used. Likewise it isn't even used in the Zapruder film article - an entire article about the film itself. Wikipedia has numerous articles about deaths yet most do not contain graphic images of death. This goes back to the "contextual significance" portion of policy and the "simply to bring attention to an article" context of images such as this. In this case my personal opinion is the image is not needed because the image shows what the text already says - using the image in the article comes off as "simply to bring attention to an article". If this image were the subject of its own article - such as Tank Man, Faris Odeh or The Falling Man - it would most likely be seen as truly meeting all 10 of the Non-free content criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're just going back to the graphic part of NFCC, then you're going to need to regain consensus for that, because the current consensus from multiple users in both the deletion review and the talk page is that the graphic nature of the image is unimportant as it is a historical image that is significant to the article. The question this section is trying to ascertain is whether it is legal and whether there are any copyright issues, not whether there are graphic or offensive issues with the image. Do you have anything to add about the legality issues raised above? Your comments on the copyright issue seem to show that you agree that there isn't any current copyright for it. SilverserenC 08:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
On you last comment: I never said that or gave any indication of that. Please re-read what I said. If it is too long and/or you don't want to follow the links the short version is: Consensus has been, and still is, that any sort of graphic and potentially shocking images need to be justified for use - even if they are free. The can not be used simply to draw attention to an article. Copyright or PD doesn't matter if that is the case. Beyond that this image is under copyright - there is no solid indication it is copyright free. Like standard promo and publicity - freely obtained and/or freely handed out does not mean it is free of copyright. As such it must meet all 10 of the NFCC. It does not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Soundvisions, the image indeed meets all of the criteria:
  1. No free equivalent. Obviously, his body is not accessible or in the same state.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities. There was no original market role since the image's widespread distribution was intended for political advocacy. It is currently widely available and given its graphic nature and historical role, highly unlikely to be sold for profit.
  3. The image usage is minimal (there is only one image and one use), and the extent is minimal (again, one image and it cannot be meaningfully cropped). There is no post-publication market role either, with respect to newspapers that republished the photo.
  4. Previous publication. Yes, multiple blogs, arabic news sites, some English news sites (less mainstream)
  5. Content. Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic: this was debated in the image deletion review and the consensus for that debate was Keep, since the image itself was historical, and its grotesque nature cannot be merely summarized in words.
  6. Media-specific policy. Meets Wikipedia:Image use policy: *The image description page is set up properly, the image is cropped, it is not dependent on text or color, it is in the proper format. ** It is not used "simply to bring attention to an article". This was debated and the consensus was that the image adds to the article. It is placed below the fold, out of consideration for readers, and to avoid exploitative suggestions.
  7. One-article minimum. Yes, if permitted, it will be used at Death of Khaled Saeed
  8. Contextual significance. There is no way to imagine this image. In order to understand why this image was shared virally and inspired so much widespread disgust and resolve, you simply must see it. The image itself is the subject of multiple-WP:RS sourced commentary in the article
  9. Restrictions on location. It is used in article space.
  10. Image description page. Contains identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible (although we could do a slightly better job explaining that the photo went from the morgue to the family to bloggers and then to Arabic media and then to the world). It has an NFCC tag. A clear and plain Fair Use claim is made for the Saeed article. Ocaasi (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the photo meets all 10 of the policy requirements. The only thing new in the above section is "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." It's clear that the photo is not being so used. There's no requirement under fair use that a reliable source has previously used the photo as fair use. Most of the objections given above are not based on policy, and the remainder contradict the facts. It's time to close this. Given the wall of text above and the multiple avenues that folks have tried to use to get this deleted - if it hasn't been shown to be against policy by now, it's not ever going to be. Smallbones (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, the entirety of remaining objections is related to the notion, "under fair use that a reliable source has previously used the photo as fair use". I also know of no such requirement. Fair Use can be claimed at any point in the chain of custody, and the fact that there is no clear chain of custody does not render the Fair Use exemption any less valid. Particularly relevant is that the image originally uploaded bears no meaningful difference to any other image, so the issue of how it was transferred is still moot: they're all the same. Further, USchick's phrase that 'no one has granted you permission to use the photo' seems to wholly misunderstand the legal process underlying Fair Use. Indeed, no one gives anyone permission for Fair Use except the US congress--heck, people can even still sue you for using the photo. What Fair Use law does, however, is act as an affirmative legal defense, which, if a court determines meets the criteria identified in the law, absolves the image reproducer or republisher of any any copyright infringment claim. To be blunt and paradoxical: Fair Use is Legal Copyright Infringement. And we have met the requirements for Fair Use. So we can now legally infringe. Ocaasi (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's requirements are stricter than fair use. Just because it may be fair use to use the image doesn't mean we can use it here. Mind you, barring the origins of the photo, I think all of the NFCC are met, but we're in an issue not covered by NFCC, that being if that image has any legal right to exist and distributed by anyone other than the morgue. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Masem, I wrote above with regards to the political context. Egypt was a) a dictatorship, the laws of which we would not necessary abide by; b) if we were to apply our legal standards, the image was transferred to the family, who can do with it what they choose (and they chose to distribute it); and c) it doesn't matter if the image was released by the family or not, since it is of historical value now regardless. So your claim is that the image may not be permitted under our policy since it was initially taken against Mubarak regime dictate designed to conceal police brutality, even though the parents accessed it or were given it and by US legal standards could do with it what they choose, and that despite it being widely distributed by them and indisputably historical, we can't use it? I'm not seeing the catch. If there was never any copyright infringement, we can't contribute to it. And even if the family broke every law in Egypt designed to keep that photo hidden, Journalism exists to expose such crimes and Fair Use exemptions exists to aid in that goal. So it seems this is coming down solely to Wikipedia standards, whether we will republish an admittedly Fair Use image, if it was initially released to or spread by a family in a foreign nation against the laws of the dictatorial government there. And Wikipedia's not-censored, pro-access-to-information ethos would respect those foreign laws, which are not legally binding on the foundation, or arguably not even binding on humanity as they existed to prop up an illegitimate goverment... why? Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If Wiki servers are located in Florida, governed by Florida laws (and that was your argument earlier) then the release laws of Florida regulate the use of this photo (and I'm not saying this is the case). It has been outlined in length why you can't use this photo, and yet a few people continue to argue. Stop whining. USchick (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If the photo could never legally have been taken, copyright is not an issue; the photo would be illegal. On this premise, everyone that has republished that photo, including the family itself, is breaking copyright laws. Are these people, at least those outside Eygpt, likely going to be punished for republishing it? I'm pretty sure not (due to the widespread nature of the image and the change that has happened since) but it would still be a violation based on the fact the photo legally shouldn't have been able to be made by anyone outside the morgue. But for WP, we need to keep our hands completely clean if there's a legal issue with the photo. Just like we would do with something like Wikileaks and with the Sony PS3 hack code. Which is why I'm trying to implore if there is a clear answer that normally such photos could be taken by outside groups (there are likely morgue records, but those are not meant for republication) and this victim was made the exception, there's a good chance that the family should have been able to do that, and thus legally the photo's possibly ok. But I'm not seeing that - it seems that morgue bodies are a photo no-no in general. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


To a point made earlier, there is no photo on the decapitation page. That's much more difficult to imagine than a beating. USchick (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We've already established that the image does not violate US law under Fair Use exemptions. The only remaining question is whether our community standards regarding copyright prohibit us from using it. Please focus on the arguments and not other editors.
The decapitation page does not address a specific image which sparked a revolution. Regardless, that is a discussion for the article talk page, where consensus has been to include it. It does not weigh on this copyright discussion unless that consensus changes. Ocaasi (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think you established fair use? HOW did you establish it? Who agreed with your opinion? USchick (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair Use is not a community opinion, it is a legal status defined by meeting certain criteria. The criteria are listed above, taken from Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review, the WP:Policy. Myself, Silverseren, Smallbones, and Masem conceded that it meets the NFCC criteria, but that there are remaining concerns external to that, and Soundvision asked questions about Fair Use policy regarding this image which are all answered affirmatively. Again, I don't think you know what Fair Use means, because it does not mean the image meets Wikipedia guidelines. Fair Use is a legal concept and NFCC is the Wikipedia interpretation of the law. The image meets our policy criteria requirements for Fair Use.
You have also objected to certain specific grounds of the NFCC criteria that have already achieved consensus at the article and image talk pages, for example, the argument that the image is not in fact necessary to imagine the image itself. But that was issue has already reached consensus in two places. If you want to address those specific points, this noticeboard is not the place to do it, because your opinion alone cannot change the consensus at the article and image discussion; you have to go there, re-initiate discussion, and then come back here.
Now, whether there are other issues relating to its inclusion, for example, whether the initial acquisition of the image violated national law in the country where it took place, is a different question from Fair Use. Ocaasi (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, if the family had no right to the picture, this would fail NFCC#4, as we presume that the original publication was legitimate to start. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
NFCC#4: Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. Masem, are we disputing that it has been published or displayed? It clearly has. Where in NFCC#4 does it address the initial publication? This is moot as well, since the family distributed the image widely, as I understand it. Ocaasi (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how widely it was distributed. Until the family gives it to you, you can't use it. USchick (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)"Publication" implies the copyright owner disseminating the material. If the photo was not legal, the family is not the copyright owners in that case, and thus while they "published" it, its not the copyright owner publishing it, and thus would fail NFCC#4.
But to USchick, if the family does have the legal right to have that photo (they have the copyright), and they chose to distribute about the internet (something that can be verified in this case, it appears), they clearly published it, and NFCC#4 is satisfied. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Because this person is dead in the photo, each use is limited. (Read the copyright on the photo it talks about each use.) Even if they gave permission to someone else for a limited use, they did not give permission to YOU. USchick (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair use (and by extension WP's NFCC) allow for the reuse of published works without permission of the copyright owner under a number of limited conditions, which the NFCC assures that we satisfy them. If the family is the true copyright owners legally, and published the photo at least one or gave someone the permission to publish the photo, we can use that photo under Fair Use, and as shown above, NFCC. Thus, this is not an issue starting on the presumption that the family acquired that photo legally and were the ones to send it around. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is true in most cases, but when the person featured in the photo is a corpse, there are regulations that limit its use. This is why no credible entity picked up the photo ––– they can't use it. And neither can we. USchick (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you offer any links to U.S. case law or reliable legal commentary that verifies that photographs of corpses may not be used under fair use in the United States? There is, of course, no mention of this exclusion at § 107. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you need legal assistance, please consult an attorney. Can you show anyone credible using this photo? Anyone who can be sued? The use of this photo on Wikipedia has legal consequences for Wikimedia Foundation. Take it up with them, and see if they will give you permission to use it, since they are the ones who will be sued. USchick (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I routinely consult Wikipedia's attorneys on copyright questions, but we do not go to them without some credible reason to believe there is a concern. If you cannot demonstrate any reason to believe that there is such a law, there's no reason to approach them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason to approach them is: This photo is not used anywhere credible. You want to use it on Wikipedia. Do they have any objections? USchick (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are advancing an argument here that we cannot use this image without individual permission from the copyright holder because "when the person featured in the photo is a corpse, there are regulations that limit its use." You also wrote, "Because this person is dead in the photo, each use is limited. (Read the copyright on the photo it talks about each use.) Even if they gave permission to someone else for a limited use, they did not give permission to YOU." If you can't demonstrate any evidence whatsoever of a law forbidding fair use of images of corpses, there is no reason to presume that such a law exists. No credible evidence has been offered here to indicate that this image deserves special handling under fair use allowances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'll find one. USchick (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
All right; it could certainly help clarify the basis of your objection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
[6] This is not a very good example, but it's enough to show you that this is a problem. Please don't start arguing about this particular case, because this is a bad example. USchick (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the limitations for use. NFCC Copyright tags are unique and limited, in that the use of an image on Wikipedia must have a sufficient and separate justification each time it is used. That does not mean that the original copyright holder must grant permission each time it is re-published. Since the image is only used in one article, and that Copyright tag is accurate and meets all NFCC criteria, there is no copyright infringement claim on those grounds.
I"ll ignore the case above, since the only people who could bring suit are the family, and they have distributed the photograph. Or if we take the file from a news re-publisher, then Fair Use applies and the family rights are not called into question. Ocaasi (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, but if it's not a good example, I'm afraid it doesn't do us any good. Are you by any chance confusing fair use with right of publicity laws? If so, Wikipedia is legally based in the state of Florida (though its offices are in California now). Florida state law does prohibit commercial exploitation of the images of people (living or dead), but the statute explicitly limits that to "purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose" and excludes content used as "part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes". There's nothing that would suggest this would limit our fair use allowances to such an image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, this is a bad example, so please don't start debating this particular case. Take it up with the attorneys, I'm done with this conversation. Peace. USchick (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to take this up with the attorneys. There is no plausible reason put forward to suspect that this is an exception to fair use allowances. They are busy professionals; sometimes there is need to consult them when situations are unclear, but the only person I see suggesting here that fair use does not apply to the images of the deceased is you, and you've offered no support for that. Our application of copyright rules on Wikipedia is not arbitrary; we make a good effort to ensure that we are complying with U.S. laws, but we don't remove or resist using content on the basis that a law might exist, without some evidence that it does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, this is a legal issue that deals with the image of a person in a photograph who is dead. If the person in the photograph was alive, we would not be having this discussion and fair use would apply. There are a number of legal issued directly tied to the fact that he is dead. Can we please take this up with someone who can provide a legal opinion? The fact that no reliable entity is using this photo is a good question to ask. USchick (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
But we've already established that the family would own the copyright under US law, that there is no requirement for additional permissions once the image has been initially published (assuming it's origination as a bribe of a state employee in Egypt doesn't render it unusable per our maximally inclusive copyright acceptance), and that there is no legal issue regarding right of publicity. So, what claim are you making?Ocaasi (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing

I'd just like to summarize the objections raised and responses to them:

  • The original image was stolen from the morgue or distributed against Egyptian law. Under US law, the family would be the rightsholder of the image of their deceased relative. And under Mubarak's Egyptian law, it was a military dictatorship, and Fair Use as well as journalistic standards would support the 'leak' of that photo.
  • The image is of a dead individual and the family controls the rights to the image. The family distributed the image to publicize his death.
  • Even if the family released the image to a blogger, they did not release the image to Wikipedia. This is a confusion of NFCC copyright tag requirements, which state that Fair Use justifications are limited and must be present for each use. But it is not permission from the copyright holder that must be obtained each time, only the NFCC copyright justification which must be specifically tailored to every use on Wikipedia.
  • There is no clear chain of custody from the family to the bloggers to the newspapers. The image's accuracy or validity is not disputed and was reported on by multiple RS sources. The images are all meaningfully identical, so on those grounds it does not matter which version we use.
  • The image is not the "subject of the commentary" since it is not the title of the article. This was a misreading of subject to mean title, where our policy only requires the image be addressed in the article directly, not that it be the titular subject of the page or even a particular section.
  • The image is not needed to imagine the event or the image itself. The image is uniquely grotesque and seeing it is what changed history. Even if the argument is plausible it requires overturning previously achieved consensus to assert. Until that happens, it has no bearing on the copyright discussion.
  • The image is used to shock readers. The image is placed below the fold and added with consideration of the photo's historical importance and the personal sacrifice it reflects. Wikipedia is not censored. Even if this argument is plausible it requires overturning previously achieved consensus to assert. Until that happens, it has no bearing on the copyright discussion.
  • The image is used to attract attention. The image is placed below the fold. Even if this argument is plausible it requires overturning previously achieved consensus to assert. Until that happens, it has no bearing on the copyright discussion.
  • The image doesn't meet NFCC criteria. The image meets all 10 NFCC criteria. The only ones in question were whether it was originally published legally (see the first and second points in this list), and whether or not it was good editorial choice to include the image (see points regarding consensus above).
  • No other major media sources used the image. This is circumstantial and not indicative of law or policy, nor binding on Wikipedia. There are cultural and commercial reasons which likely explain why it was not published, since few grotesque images are.
  • We could be sued. No plausible legal argument has been made and cited. We can always be sued. Fair Use is an affirmative defense in case that happens, and one which courts have upheld as a valid exception to copyright.

Since none of these are valid reasons to exclude the image, I suggest we close this discussion with the result being to replace it. Ocaasi (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary, thank you. I suggest you take it to Wikimedia Foundation and seek their legal opinion. USchick (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem seeking their opinion, but since the grounds for doing so do not withstand initial scrutiny, in the meantime, the image should be replaced. Ocaasi (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The agreement on the talk page was to leave the picture off until the discussion is resolved. This discussion is not resolved. USchick (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I didn't get the feeling you thought speaking with the Foundation was warranted. Is that something you would do? Ocaasi (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I do not bother the Foundation's attorneys without some strong indication that there is need. There is none given here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are no other objections or opposition, I intend to replace the photo then. Future claims may be valid, although I can't think of any right now, and we can deal with them if they arise. Ocaasi (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I would say give it time, maybe until tomorrow, to see if anybody else has input or if any evidence of this fair use problem is presented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i'm not in a particular rush so long as the discussion we're having is on substantive grounds. Ocaasi (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The original image was stolen from the morgue or distributed against Egyptian law. Under US law, the family would be the rightsholder of the image of their deceased relative. And under Mubarak's Egyptian law, it was a military dictatorship, and Fair Use as well as journalistic standards would support the 'leak' of that photo. You are making a leap of logic here that hasn't been proven yet. First, while Fair Use is US Law, we do respect the laws of other countries in terms of their images as well; eg if something would be PD in the states but in the country of origin it is still copyrighten, we treat it as copywriten. Secondly, while it may be polictically and journalistically appropriate for the photo to be published to expose the dictatorship, that doesn't change anything about if it is legal or not. I mean, that's the whole point about Wikileaks is they are trying to disseminate information that was classified to expose things. Some may call it a good cause but it is still illegal. I'm willing to be proven wrong that the photo as taken was legally within the family's bounds, but everything reports suggests that it wasn't. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Wikileaks distribution of material very arguably is legal, and protected in the U.S. for journalists and publishers under the first amendment (see: Pentagon_papers#Legal_case). So, it seems the analogy you're making is between Bradley Manning and the Saeed family who respectively took proprietary information from the US government and the Egyptian state. But that would mean the original copyright holder--the now deposed Mubarak regime--could sue Wikipedia for a copyright infringement claim about the photo which lead to its overthrow... Are you saying the community would treat even that hypothetical claim of ownership as valid? Ocaasi (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between the use of journalism's protection of its sources in a free speech society, and us reusing that material for an educational purpose. And no, technically the comparison is between Manning, the person accused of leaking the documents, and the bribed guard, the one that took the picture of questionable legality (the family would be comparable to Assange, the person disseminating the information obtained by questionable legality. And while the old government has been disposed, there is nothing to demonstrate the new government hasn't rescinded the copyrights of the old government, yet. (Russian copyright law is a mess because of this) --MASEM (t) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the community aware that our copyright policy, insofar as we respect foreign law in terms of fair use, is in direct conflict with free speech protections, particularly those for critics of government human rights abuses, even if those foreign laws are in part designed to conceal those abuses? Am I missing something, because to me that seems absolutely ludicrous and the very reason why Fair Use--and perhaps IAR--were created. Ocaasi (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that NFCC is stricter than Fair Use, which is arguably part of free speech, then yes. Remember, the protections that you've pointed to are for journalistic sourcing, not for educational documents. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is that back to NFCC#4?
Also, to be clear, the free speech protections to which I'm referring are not shield laws, but the right to publish such information acknowledged in New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States. Although we have an educational mission, aren't we also a publisher? Ocaasi (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If the family owns the copyright, then it's clearly within bounds for NFCC. If they don't own the copyright, they had no right to republish it, and that's a NFCC#4 problem. I don't think we can answer this clearly even with any Foundation council help, as it's a very unique case. My gut says its ok, my mind says we should steer clear, and I've provided rationales that, while the image would otherwise pass all parts of NFCC save for #8, we can still describe the image in text without showing the image, so my personal preference is to stay clear as possible on that. But I understand that the consensus otherwise seems to favor the use of this image, believing #8 to be ok here. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Other gruesome images

As many people that set themselves on fire lately, would you like to show a picture of that? USchick (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

USchick, as I suspected, you are now raising non-copyright concerns which can only be addressed at the article and must override the consensus there that this specific image in this specific context is appropriate. To speculate an answer, if a photograph of a person setting themselves on fire became itself a subject of historical significance, widely distributed, and discussed by multiple RS sources, then it would be within the same realm of consideration. Ocaasi (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Request for Foundation assistance

Moonriddengirl, since we are not going to solve this ourselves, and all the questions revolve around legal issues, can we please seek a legal opinion? Here is a California court case [7] USchick (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

USchick, that case is about "the right to privacy" not copyright. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review a lower court ruling in a lawsuit over gruesome death-scene photos leaked by the California Highway Patrol, clearing the way for a possible jury trial in the case. In other words, the state supreme court let stand a lower court ruling that the deceased did have a right to privacy. However, the right to privacy would not have been at issue if the family of the deceased had themselves released the photographs, as was the case with Saeed. So that case has no bearing on either copyright specifically or Saeed in general. Ocaasi (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment from Wnt
  • This forum can only effectively address policy issues. If someone feels that Wikipedia is violating the law, it is possible to contact the WMF Foundation and request an office action or lodge a DMCA complaint. Therefore, within this context, we need only evaluate the relevant policy issues (WP:Non-free content):
  • Unacceptable non-free content includes: "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article". Is the photo the subject of sourced commentary in the article? (not section, sidebar, etc) - clearly yes. So that objection does not apply.
  • Acceptable use includes: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". Is this an image with iconic status? Clearly yes. Is this an image of historical importance? Clearly yes. Is this image a subject of commentary? Clearly yes.
Unless someone can suggest something else in our non-free content policy that applies, or disputes one of the "clearly yes" answers I give above, I think we're done here. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Unacceptable use includes: #10 – An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.
This is not a historical image in the sense that it's so old that no one knows where it came from. This is a recent image where someone knows where it came from. USchick (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
USchick, the image's provenance is very clear. The photo was taken at the morgue where Saeed's autopsy was performed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806360.html), and given to his family leaked. That objection does not affect this case. Ocaasi (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
And you know this because???? USchick (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A verifiable origin means that we know where we got the photo. It doesn't mean that you have to have GPS coordinates for the morgue. This photo ran in the secondary sources that discuss it. We're discussing its significance to Egypt's revolution. It wouldn't matter if we found out tomorrow it was cooked up on a pirate copy of Photoshop; it still would be a verifiable origin and a meaningful historical phenomenon. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
First, that's your interpretation of what it means. Second, this discussion took place earlier, and no one could come up with an acceptable secondary source that was credible. USchick (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's hypothesize a case of where a couple may have taken their own pornographic pictures of themselves in private, never intending to publish them: a thief ransacks their house, finds the pictures, and publishes them far and wide, becoming "notable" and historically significant for WP's purposes. While thousands of other sites out there would not blink an eye at this publishing, my take on everything about copyvio and non-free content and the like says we take the high road and avoid this questionable legal case, which is a case outside of the intent of NFCC. (Contrast this to where the couple publishes the photo themselves achieving the same effect) This morgue photo is very similar in that there is a questionable matter if the photo was able to be taken under normal circumstances by the family. I'm willing to take the route that since it's been out, its fine to use, but I still feel we should avoid using it until its legal assurance is answered. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking the high road means recognizing the legitimacy of Egyptian media, Egyptian politics, and Egyptian revolution as historic material worthy of serious academic study and Wikipedia coverage -- not making up new policy as you go along based on hypothetical examples (which would be ruled out by the old policy anyway) Wnt (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
NFCC starts on the assumption that we're using an image that is legal and not an outright copyvio. I have some doubts that this image was obtained legally; regardless of how much it was used by third party sources since; it is not their legal problems we are worried about, it is ours. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh??? The whole point of Fair Use is to "violate copyright" (i.e. to exempt from it) in order to allow free discussion. For purposes of discussion, the point that the image is copyrighted has been conceded - though due to some good research above, a case may exist to say that it is actually PD-press release suitable for posting to Commons. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment from Off2riorob
tangent discussion - nothing to do with wp:fairuse - started by Off2riorob and closed by Off2riorob
  • - My issue with this picture would be even if it was free it has no place in wikipedia. Its a dead person, I assume we have no details as to how long or under what conditions he was kept under since he died and this picture the low quality picture without any actual verifiable detail is being used in an activist manner to assert - look how badly beaten he was, the whole thing is original research and the assertion is unverifiable, even if under a commons licence or public domain the picture has no place in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    Rob, this is not a random shock photo. There's been extensive reporting that after Saeed was taken from an internet cafe in Egypt, he was beaten by police officers in a stairway where he died. This photo is from the morgue on that evening. The image is what was sent around Egypt, what started the We are all Khaled Said facebook page led by Wael Ghonim, and a frequent image shared and demonstrated with by protesters. I can see how you would put it in the activist context, but, in this case, that activist context is what actually happened in the real world, as covered by many RS which documented the role of Saeed's death in galvanizing protesters. For example: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0618/Beating-death-of-Egyptian-businessman-Khalid-Said-spotlights-police-brutality . -- Ocaasi (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The part that you seem to be missing, is that the family may have released this photo because they wanted the police officers arrested. They have now been arrested. End of story. USchick (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to shut this small sub issue down, its been noted on my talkpage that this discussion is not about the value of the pictures usage on wikipedia but just about the issue of is it fair use or not, so excuse me for complicating the discussion, feel free to remove this mini discussion, User:Oscassi did ask me to comment but as my comment is not specifically about the fair use issue I shouldn't have commented this at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This was a relevant discussion to fair use. When the opinion did not match the opinion of the person who requested it, it became an issue. I would like to keep the discussion. USchick (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It's actually not relevant to fair use, until it becomes consensus at the article or image talk pages. Ocaasi (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You invited this person on his talk page to comment specifically on fair use. Now you don't think it's relevant? USchick (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I invited Rob--who I knew had conservative views on these kinds of images--so that he could give an informed viewpoint which would challenge my own, and also Wnt's whom I also invited. But Rob's comments, while appropriate for general BLP concerns, were not relevant for the issues we were discussing. I didn't give him much information prior to the discussion, so if he just went with his initial opinion, which it appears he did, it would not be relevant here. Either way I don't care; I didn't collapse the discussion, Rob did. In saying his comment was not relevant, I was only repeating what I have already argued, which is that issues of the image's appropriateness at the article that are not directly related to copyright should be engaged at the article first, since there is currently consensus there to include the image (assuming it's legal and within policy to do so). There was consensus to use the image before you removed it, for affirmative reasons that had nothing to do with its NFCC compatability. Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Purpose of the photograph
I'd like to respond to US chick's statement above that: "The part that you seem to be missing, is that the family may have released this photo because they wanted the police officers arrested. They have now been arrested." Wikipedia does not exist for promote any agenda, whether it is the family's or the Egyptian governments. We report what Reliable Sources report. Reliable Sources reported that this image was instrumental in the leadup to the revolution. We then use free or NFCC compatible images to illustrate the article, particularly in places where the image itself is the subject of commentary and its addition is of unique value to the reader (one which can't be accomplished without text). The fact that the family may have had a purpose to release the photos, and the fact that that purpose may have been achieved is completely moot, not only for this discussion, which is only about copyright, but for the whole of Wikipedia mission. Those real-world benchmarks have absolutely nothing to do with encyclopedic writing--which is a record of important stuff that has happened. That record is designed to last forever not just until the change someone sought is achieved. (forgot to sign earlier) Ocaasi (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that explanation. I'm not aware of any Wiki policy that addresses the unique value of the reader and appoints you as the guardian of what can and can not be accomplished with text. Can you please provide a link? USchick (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA and WP:NPOV. There is no specific policy for what images can and can't accomplish; that is a matter for editorial judgment. Ocaasi (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Comment by Soundvisions

(edit conflict) Meant to be posted under Wnt reply but edict conflicted out of the location

First - if this image is so "iconic" than there should not be any issues with it having its own stand alone article. The article I see is is not about the image itself, it is about the subject of the image. To some that is a narrow line but it is important if one uses the "iconic" argument for non-free material. I am not saying you need to creates one, I am just saying if that were the case a large portion of this discussion would be different.

Let me be clear about the image use policy - it is a policy. Consensus set that and the issue of Wikipedia not being sensationalistic is a fact as well. The repeated comments about needing a consensus to establish that is just ignoring what the consensus already is. With *any* explicit material it needs to be considered what the use is for and if it is simply to be exploitative than is should not be used.

Throwing out the repeated "Wikipedia is not censored" is missing the overall issue/s *and* missing how it relates to the NFCC. I never said to "censor" this, or any other material, from Wikipedia. However I have been involved in numerous image related discussions, including many that deal with "death" and how to handle images of death. In this case, for what one editor has found, it appears the the family bribed someone to take the photo. The simple fact it was a family member does not excuse/exempt any sort of issue in terms of how this otherwise private image was obtained - which, again, can be first looked at in relation to the image use policy. Lets presume, in good faith, the image was not added to the article simply to draw attention it the article - now stay on the same policy and look at Privacy rights. "Oh the person is dead" does not matter if the venue where the image was taken was private. It is pretty much established this image was obtained form somewhere that was not public, or open to the public. And what about moral issues? Again - start with how the image was obtained - per policy if it was "unfairly obtained" than it is not acceptable per policy. And the fact the image was supposedly obtained (at some point) via a family member still does not exempt *how* it was obtained in the first place if that "how" is not in line with Wikipedia policy.

Now the issue becomes why the image was taken and why it was used - based on this discussion it was done for propaganda, and media outlets that used it, according to USchick, did so because they could sell more papers AND be the first to break the story in the media. To me the latter sounds like it fits the bill as exploitation of the subject. We can agree to disagree if the use at Wikipedia is for exploitation, or "to draw attention to the article", but as the image is non-free US copyright law regarding fair use does not dictate the images use here - it guides policy here, which does dictate image use here.

So far everyone but me has ignored Criteria number 6 - Media-specific policy. While I asked if it is being used to bring attention to the article, the overall discussion is about how this was obtained - which is also explicitly part of the same policy. If it was "unfairly obtained" than it is not acceptable per policy - and if so than it certainly does not meet all 10 of the Non-free content criteria. And in regards to Criteria number 8 - Contextual significance I asked if the image was needed to understand "fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma" - for me it isn't. Article specific - 2011 Egyptian revolution does not need the image at all - why? The article is not about the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. So lets presume this overall discussion just chooses to IAR with respect to the Image use policy and Criteria number 6 and move on to the "next" article - The Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed is an article about a persons death as much as the John F. Kennedy assassination, Execution of Saddam Hussein, Tank Man, Faris Odeh or The Falling Man are articles about the subjects of those articles death. But unlike Tank Man, Faris Odeh or The Falling Man the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed is not about an image that made the world take notice and ask "Who is that?". Currently the article is more in line with the John F. Kennedy assassination and Execution of Saddam Hussein articles - it give a history of the "event" itself. The difference here is that it is being argued a reader needs to see this individual image and/or frame gab to understand the the articles text while nobody is demanding, because "Wikipedia is not censored", readers also need to see the frame of film where JFK is hit in the head, or any frames of the media coverage or moblie phone video from the execution of Saddam.

Certainly if we want to play this out than why not find images that illustrate how Multiple witnesses have testified that Saeed was beaten to death by the police, why not show frames from the video material that implicates members of the police in a drug deal, most amazing is why there is no screen shot of the Facebook memorial page for Saeed that has attracted hundreds of thousands of followers in the article. And as it relates to this topic and the "argument" that "Wikipedia is not censored" why not, in the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article, uses the frames of video that show her bleed heavily and bleed profusely? As the article says these videos became a rallying point for the opposition and were described as "probably the most widely witnessed death in human history" *and* these videos were "publicly" done in a public location, not done in private via someone bribing someone to take them, there may not be much wrong about using such material at Wikipedia.

Again - there is more than a single issue at play here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

By all means these sound like very important things to include, but I wasn't aware of them. Please remember that the deletionists/censors are winning mostly by tying up any productive editors in useless squabbles. The moment this Saeed image went up it was targeted for deletion based purely on "moralistic" concerns - better to keep people ignorant and confused than to let the ugly truth be seen in public. Wikipedia has been sinking into a morass of censorship and distortion, as it is swamped by those no longer interested in adding knowledge but in controlling it. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The image is iconic, but it doesn't need its own article since its notability is only in relation to Khaled's death. There's not even a separate article on Khaled Saeed because of WP:BLP1E.
  • All references to consensus had nothing to do with Copyright police or Sensationalism under policy. They refer to the consensus reached at Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed and at the File (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg) to Keep the image and to Include it at the article.
  • On the merits, the use of this photo is not exploitative; it is the opposite, as sharing the photo is what turned the death from an isolated tragedy into a revolution. We are not using the image to make a point not made already by sources. We are not using the image to attract attention to the article. The image is a testament to what actually happened and why the distribution of that photograph was so impactful. Seriously, imagine it was your family member's photo. Now imagine it helped overthrow a dictator. Both those were true for Saeed's family and for Egypt. The image is used in that context.
  • You're suggesting that there were privacy rights violations, since the morgue is not a public place. But the privacy rights belong not to the Egyptian government, which was a dictatorship, but to the family. The family sought those photographs and made sure they did not go to waste. Whose privacy are you intending to protect?
  • The photo may have been obtained immorally, if you accept that immoral governments can make any claim to morality (Rousseau didn't). We may have to decide if the fact that the photo became historically important despite a technical violation in its acquisition renders it not NFCC compatible; I think we would be wrong to exclude it on those grounds, since doing so essentially shields dictators from universally recognized free speech protections for journalists and critics of government abuse.
  • You wrote: "based on this discussion it was done for propaganda, and media outlets that used it, according to USchick, did so 'because they could sell more papers AND be the first to break the story in the media.'" No one else has claimed that the image was used exploitatively. USchick also claimed the opposite that 'no papers published this image so we shouldn't'. In short, the image was mainly spread through social networks, email, and blogs. Only after it became a phenomenon did Egyptian news sources cover it. This image was not tabloid fodder. It was a tribute to Saeed's sacrifice and a rallying cry for protesters.
  • Image-Use policy. The discussion over whether it is needed to represent the "fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma" is missing the point. The image is needed to understand the shocking nature of the image--again, not so we can shock readers--but so readers can understand why this image had the impact it did when it shocked half of Egypt into revolting against their government. We can say, "a grotesque cell phone photo of Said's disfigured face showing his mangled jaw, broken bones, and oozing blood", and/or, we can show the picture that itself was noteworthy. Again, consensus at the article and file talk pages was that the file is needed, and I still maintain discussion on that point should happen there.
  • The difference between this article and JFK or any other historic event is that the photo itself was part of the event's significance. JFK's assassination video could be shown at Zapruder film perhaps, but it's kind of academic even in that context because there is no shot in from that video which changed our understanding of the event. Now, if there was a gruesome image which showed a second shooter, that would be grounds for inclusion. In the Saeed case, we don't just use the image to illustrate the event, we use the image to illustrate the photograph. It was the photograph that was disseminated, the photograph which was reported on, and the photograph which carried the message of protesters that they wouldn't stand for police brutality. Perhaps no other historical incident exists where a common photograph had such a phenomenal impact on the trajectory of events as they happened, largely due to the maturation of social media and its intersection with a broiling society. If so, analogies may fail. Actually, Neda is a good comparison, and I can't think of a copyright related reason not to use that video. Each article comes up with its own decision in cases like this, so you'd have to go there and ask them. If you come to the Saeed article, we can give you our reasons, but they make no universal case, just a specific one.
  • You suggested we should also/instead show media which shows that: Multiple witnesses have testified that Saeed was beaten to death by the police or the video material that implicates members of the police in a drug deal. Neither of those videos exist, to my knowledge, nor were either shared among protesters in the lead-up to the revolution. You also asked why there is no screen shot of "the Facebook memorial page for Saeed that has attracted hundreds of thousands of followers". That's a great idea, but it has nothing to do with whether or not this image is appropriate. We should have both. Ocaasi (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
First an image page or article talk page consensus does not override a policy such as NFCC. Second is that I see zero discussion on the image talk page you linked to and the article talk page as far from any sort of consensus. Actually now that you pointed it out, and seeing how much this has been discussed, (Ifd, DRV, AN/i) it is almost like forum shopping at this point because in each discussion I see valid issues being raised about NFCC but being drowned out by those yelling that "Wikipedia is not censored" over and over. The DRV seemed to be based on a technicality that, because failure of the NFCC wasn't explicitly laid out, "Not censored" was violated. I find it slightly ironic the DRV closer said No prejudice against renomination under NFCC grounds.
The only "consensus" I see is what policy already says - Wikipedia is not censored. I don't think the wider amount of editors in these discussions have ever argued it is. What has been discussed is the context in relation to the content - which is well within scope of the policy that this portion of Wikipedia is about. If you want to use the idea of "consensus" than look around and the "consensus" is that Wikipedia is not censored, but it also does not use images such as this just because "Wikipedia is not censored". I have looked over the discussions about this image and time after time the underlying issue is that there is no need to see this image when text describes it. That *is* an NFCC issue and should not be met with "not censored" every time someone says they can understand it via the text alone. Likewise if article after article that *could* use such similar content (speaking about non-free content) doesn't, that too implies a wider overall consensus that text can get the same point across, and it adds less weight that this image is really needed and adds more weight that it is only being kept on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not censored." Soundvisions1 (talk)
Right, image and article talk pages do not override NFCC; however, they do at least minimally show that the aspects of NFCC which depend on editorial consensus (shock, exploitation, need to illustrate) arrived at yes. Those debates were not unanimous. The deletion discussion resulted in Keep on "not censored" grounds, because the image itself (copyright aside) is not against Wikipedia policy. objections were almost solely based on the idea that the image was offensive or might turn off readers, and WP:NOTCENSORED makes clear that those grounds are insufficent for exclusion. The fact that we're here talking about NFCC is just how procedure went. The DRV focused on the image's content not copyright, and now we're talking about it's copyright. A bit chaotic perhaps, but I wasn't there, and what does it matter as long as we address all of the points now. I have no doubt that whatever NFCC issue you want to raise, there is a very sound argument that the image meets it. There are counter-arguments, but they not be strong enough to create a clear consensus either way. Which means it will likely minimally meet NFCC and then be left as an editorial decision for the editors at the article page, as it should be. So let's wrap up the NFCC debate, perhaps provisionally, and then move to a talk page discussion where the image is actually used, with an RFC is necessary, so that it can be centered around the place where it is most relevant.
The notion of forum shopping is a bit off. It is those who have sought to delete the image who have brought it up in now the 3rd and 4th place (see the file deletion discussion USchick started today). Although you don't think their claims have yet been heard, it's not forum shopping for either party-- those who sought to have claims heard or those who argued against them wherever they came up. It's just good ole Wikipedia, messy but eventually gets it right.
Wikipedia is not censored does not override NFCC, nor did I say it does. We are having 'the copyright' discussion here. If we are going to combine this discussion with all of the editorial appropriateness issues that were discussed at the article, then let's be clear about that. On those grounds there are affirmative reasons to use the photo well beyond Wikipedia is not censored. As I've mentioned above and can continue to provide sourcing for, this image itself is of remarkable historic importance. It has been widely distributed. It is broadly understood to have played a critical role in sparking the revolution. The image's grotesque nature is not extraneous to the article; that nature is what made the image such a catalyzing piece of media in the real world.
As for policy, I can speculate on a clear formulation if you would like: Wikipedia is not censored. This means that no piece of information or media should be excluded solely on the ground that some people object to it. However, Wikipedia exists to serve its readers a useful and educational encyclopedic experience. Text and images which distract, shock, titillate, or offend without contributing to the encyclopedia's educational mission should not be included without a compelling argument why they should be. In the case of images considered sexual by many readers, it is wise to choose an image which represents the specific topic with no more sexual content than is necessary to be educational. For an image which is likely to be offensive, such as a religious cartoon, there should not be excessive loading of the page with such images beyond what is necessary to inform the reader of the main issue. For grotesque or violent images, they should rarely be included to illustrate events which were obviously known to be violent, such as killings, disasters, and wars; however, if an image of those events itself becomes iconic the image may be appropriately included, particularly if the image is subject of discussion in the article and backed up by reliably sourced commentary. Ocaasi (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More Source

Much of our discussion has centered around the origination of this image. I think the following sources may be helpful. (note: I've added sources which place the photograph in a central role in galvanizing internet activism and sparking the initial protests. To put it simply, the effect of this photograph cannot be overstated).

  • Washington Post: The next day, Said's mother was notified that her son was at the morgue. The cause of death, she was told, was severe cardiovascular asphyxiation caused by a high level of drugs in his system. The initial police report received by the family said Said had apparently died after he swallowed a bag that contained marijuana. Finding that account suspicious, relatives bribed a guard at the morgue to take a photo of the corpse. It showed Said's skull had been cracked and his face disfigured. After local prosecutors expressed little interest in pursuing the case, Kassem, who was a father figure to Said, began holding news conferences. Said's cousins created a page on Facebook to expose what they called police brutality. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806360.html
  • CS Monitor: Gruesome photos of Said, reportedly taken in the morgue and circulated on websites and blogs, support their story. They show his face broken and battered, and bruises on his body. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0618/Beating-death-of-Egyptian-businessman-Khalid-Said-spotlights-police-brutality
  • The National (United Arab Emirates): Witnesses said the two men attacked Said as he entered an internet cafe opposite his home and beat him to death. Two state post-mortems determined that he died of suffocation from swallowing a packet of drugs, however. Said's death, and a photograph taken by his older brother Ahmed, showing him covered with bruises, his teeth broken and jaw smashed, caused an outcry across Egypt. More than 225,000 people have joined a group called "We are all Khaled" on Facebook and many members of the social networking site have put his picture as their profile pictures. http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/africa/undercover-police-arrested-over-beating-death-of-egyptian-man
  • Almasry Alyoum: Al-Masry Al-Youm has obtained a copy of records of the investigation into the killing of Alexandrian Khaled Saeed, which show surprising findings by the appeals prosecution services... When Saeed’s mother returned to give a testimony for the second time, she stressed that she saw her son’s corpse at the morgue six hours after he had been killed. “He was on the trolley, wearing white shorts and a black T-shirt, barefooted, injured in the face and the back of his head, bleeding from his knees, hands, and feet, and he had broken teeth,” she said. ًWhen asked about the photos taken of the body, she said that Saeed’s brother took them on his mobile phone while he was at the morgue at 3:00 AM. She added that she has not since seen her son, and called for a new autopsy, describing the medical examiners’ report as incorrect. http://www.almasryalyoum.com/node/55686
  • NATO Review: A police report claimed he had died after swallowing a bag of marijuana. But Said’s family obtained photos of his battered corpse from a morgue guard. His jaw, twisted out of shape by a policeman’s boot, was enough proof of a cover-up. So in defiance of the Egyptian authorities, the photos were published online by Said’s cousins. They became a shocking, viral sensation. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/Social_Medias/Egypt_Facebook/EN/index.htm
  • SFGate: Had it not been for a leaked morgue photo of his mangled corpse, tenacious relatives and the power of Facebook, the death of Khaled Said would have become a footnote in the annals of Egyptian police brutality. Instead, outrage over the beating death of the 28-year-old man in this coastal city last summer, and attempts by local authorities to cover it up, helped spark the mass protests demanding the ouster of Egypt's authoritarian president....Finding that account suspicious, relatives bribed a guard at the morgue to take a photo of the corpse. It showed that Said's skull had been cracked and his face disfigured. After local prosecutors expressed little interest in pursuing the case, Kassem, who was a father figure to Said, began holding news conferences. Said's cousins created a page on Facebook to expose what they called police brutality. http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-10/news/27740387_1_police-brutality-internet-cafe-morgue
  • ABCNews: Said's family told ABC News it was too dangerous for them to speak out now because of police stationed near their home, but his mother has posted on-line videos to protest the long delay in prosecuting the two police officers charged with her son's murder. Social media and on-line videos have played a huge role in publicizing alleged police abuses in Egypt in recent years. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-face-launched-revolution/story?id=12841488&page=2
  • CNN: The photo of Khaled Said's beaten, bloodied, fractured face went viral online. The Egyptian man was allegedly beaten to death by police outside an internet café. He reportedly had possession of a video showing police selling illegal drugs. Saleh and others were shocked. Soon they had created a Facebook page. The name: "We Are All Khaled Said." Google employee Wael Ghonim, working at night online from Dubai, headed this effort. Administering the site anonymously under the pseudonym "el shaheed," which is Arabic for "the martyr," he filled the page with news about police abuse and torture...Soon, there were Facebook-organized protests to show support for Khaled Said. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/02/21/egypt.internet.revolution/index.html
  • Sandmonkey.org (Wael Ghonim's website): When the story went out, and people saw the pictures, they were of course enraged. About a 1000 people gathered after the Friday prayers to protest in front of the police stations, and there are plans to do sit ins and demos this entire week, demanding that people take action, before they become the next Khaled. http://www.sandmonkey.org/2010/06/13/on-khaled-said/
  • CNN: Mohamed ElBaradei, the former chief of the U.N. atomic agency and now an Egyptian reformist figure, joined thousands of people in Alexandria on Friday to protest the death of an Egyptian man and shine a light on police brutality. Khaled Said died after police dragged him out of an internet cafe in Alexandria on June 6 -- a fatality that has since become a lightning rod for human rights activists...A photograph of his pummeled face is on a Facebook page devoted to him....The death has sparked other demonstrations in Egypt in which crowds were forcibly dispersed and some were arrested, the group said... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-25/world/egypt.police.beating_1_brutality-mohamed-elbaradei-egyptian?_s=PM:WORLD
  • Human Rights Watch: "Witness accounts and the photographs of Khaled Said's mangled face constitute strong evidence that plainclothes security officers beat him in a vicious and public manner," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "All those involved should be speedily interrogated, and the prosecutor should fully investigate what caused the fractures and trauma clearly evident on his body." Photos of Said's battered and deformed face published on the internet show a fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma. Khaled's brother, Ahmed Said, confirmed the authenticity of the pictures to Human Rights Watch. Nine witnesses came forward to describe the beating.http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/24/egypt-prosecute-police-beating-death
  • Daily Beast: Ghonim’s Facebook page started as a small campaign against police brutality but quickly mushroomed into an all-out effort against human-rights abuses in Egypt...Ghonim described himself as an amateur activist who was inspired to create the page after seeing photos of how the blogger, Khaled Said, had been brutally beaten to death and his maimed body left in the street. “That killed me. I felt in pain. And I wanted to do something,” he said. “It happened that I created this page, and it happened that 375,000 people [are] on it. So I'm using it to reveal the truth that the government is trying to hide.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-07/google-executive-wael-ghonim-admits-he-was-el-shaheed/
  • Jadaliyya (Arab Studies Institute publication): [The online activists] Facebook activities also included a commitment to demanding justice for the brutal killing of one of their own, Khaled Said. It was striking last October how every youth I encountered in and out of the university was talking about Khaled Said. His story, which came out of Facebook, not Al-Jazeera, the newspaper, or any other media, has by now received much international coverage... His family released a photograph to an activist of the broken, bloodied, and disfigured face from Khaled’s corpse. This photo, and a portrait of the gentle soft skinned face of the living Khaled, went viral. The power of photographic evidence combined with eyewitness accounts and popular knowledge of police brutality left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he was senselessly and brutally murdered by police officers, the very people who are supposed to act in the interest of public safety. A Facebook page, “We are all Khaled Said” was set up and we now know that activists from the Facebook group 6 of April Youth Movement, and Google executive Wael Ghoneim who is becoming a national hero as instigator of the Day of Rage (see below), were involved in this. The page led to a movement, first for justice to bring the killers to court to pay for their crime, and then, something much bigger. On the heels of the Tunisian revolution and fleeing of the dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the “We are all Khaled Said” group called for a Day of Rage, a march against “Torture, Corruption, Poverty and Unemployment” for January 25, 2011, the date the Regime designated to “celebrate” the police...The uprising took off in a way that no one anticipated. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/612/egypts-revolution-2.0_the-facebook-factor
  • Newsweek: That month,'a young Alexandria businessman named Khaled Said, who had posted a video on the Web showing cops pilfering pot from a drug bust, was assaulted at an Internet café by local police. They dragged him outside and beat him to death in broad daylight. Photos of his battered corpse went viral. Ghonim was moved by the photos to start a new Facebook page called “We Are All Khaled Said,” to which he began devoting the bulk of his efforts. The page quickly became a forceful campaign against police brutality in Egypt, with a constant stream of photos, videos, and news. Ghonim’s interactive style, combined with the page’s carefully calibrated posts—emotional, apolitical, and broad in their appeal—quickly turned it into one of Egypt’s largest activist sites. On Jan. 14, protests in Tunisia felled that country’s longstanding dictator, and Ghonim was inspired to announce, on Facebook, a revolution of Egypt’s own. Each of the page’s 350,000-plus fans was cordially invited to a protest on Jan. 25. They could click “yes,” “no,” or “maybe” to signal whether they’d like to attend. In the space of three days, more than 50,000 people answered “yes.” Posing as El Shaheed in a Gmail chat, Ghonim was optimistic but cautioned that online support might not translate into a revolt in the streets...Ghonim implored his Facebook fans to spread word of the protest to people on the ground, and he and other activists constantly coordinated efforts, combining online savvy with the street activism long practiced by the country’s democracy movements. Ghonim seemed to view the page both as a kind of central command and a rallying point—getting people past “the psychological barrier.” http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/13/the-facebook-freedom-fighter.html
  • Wired: When Khaled Said died, Ghonim said, the government claimed he’d choked on hash. But the internet allowed dissenters to counter those claims online, and as their voices grew, the government lost its power of deception, Ghonim said. Ghonim, as the anonymous administrator of the Khaled Said Facebook page, invited people to join the page and share their voices and suggestions for action. Within a few days, thousands of people had signed up. “It was an amazing story how everyone started feeling the ownership, everyone was an owner in this page,” Ghonim said. “People started contributing ideas.” Someone suggested a silent protest, where people dressed in black would gather in the street, turn their faces to the sea and stand silently for an hour before dispersing and going home. “People were making fun of the idea,” Ghonim said. But then thousands of protesters showed up in Alexandria. “It was great because it connected people from the virtual world, bringing them to the real world, sharing the same dream the same frustration the same anger the same desire for freedom,” he said. Then came the Tunisian uprising, which helped tip Egypt into its own revolution. Ghonim’s Facebook page again became a central point for expressing frustration. “Everything was done by the people to the people, and that’s the power of the internet,” he says. “There was no leader. The leader was everyone on that page.”...“People were so empowered … and now asking for their rights,” he said. “Extremism became tolerance. Who would imagine before the 25th if I tell you that hundreds of thousands of Christians are going to pray, and tons of thousands of Muslims are going to protect them, and then hundreds of thousands of Muslims are going to pray and tons of thousands of Christians are going to protect them.” When he saw what was happening he knew it was the beginning of the end and returned to his Facebook page to post a note. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/wael-ghonim-at-ted/

So we have confirmation from multiple RS that the photo came from the morgue where Saeed's autopsy was performed. We have testimony from Saeed's mother that Saeed's brother took the photo on his cell phone. We have a confirming report that the photo was taken by Saeed's brother. We have reports that the close family began spreading news of Saeed's death. I think that settles the provenance issue. Ocaasi (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note, the sources I have been adding go on to show the connection between the photo and the initiation of protests. Those protests were centered around Said's death and inspired by the disgust and outrage from that photograph. Ocaasi (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think these sources help a significant amount. They put better context on what happened by combining the different reports. It seems that the relatives bribed the guard to let Saeed's brother into the morgue where it was the brother that took the photo on his mobile phone. Therefore, the image copyright does belong directly to the brother, who released it onto the internet and disseminated it widely, using it himself on the Facebook page he created "We Are All Khaled Said". Therefore, we don't have any problems with legality anymore. The copyright holder, the brother, uploaded it freely onto the internet for everyone to use. SilverserenC 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Just one note there. We Are All Khaled Said was started by Wael Ghonim. I can't trace the exact path from the brother's photo to the internet, but sources have made clear that as soon as the family saw Saeed that they began vigorous activism. I'll look for an exact statement, but it's almost unnecessary. If we have confirming reports that the brother took the photo, then it's reasonable to assume that he is the one who shared it. While it's possible he shared it with a friend who only then leaked it to the world, the distance between the family's obvious motivation to publicize Saeed's death and insinuations that they would have objected to the photo being spread, are beginning to strain any sort of reason. Ocaasi (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Update on that point. I have sources showing the cousin uploaded the photos to the internet, and after that We Are All Khaled Saeed was next. There might be an intermediate step where the cousin was actually involved in the creation of that page. I think where this is leading is that we should use the photograph of Saeed from the Facebook page rather than the current Arabic news website. Ocaasi (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's assume that a family member took the picture on their cell phone and that everything after that step was appropriate. My concern is still that the original act appears to have been illegal - they had to bribe a guard to get in there. This still makes the issue of whether the family really owns the copyright in question - if they did not have a right to take that image and used illicit means to do so, that doesn't necessarily make that photo something of their own copyright to disseminate freely. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Masem, I would love to have an RFC over whether or not Saeed's brother bribing the security guard at the mosque where his autopsy was performed renders this photograph ineligible for copyright under our policies, US law, international property law, international human rights law, or Egyptian law. If we can reduce this debate to only that issue, then we will know exactly what to ask. However I don't think we've cleared up the other questions just yet, since it appears there are still objections that the image could be replaced with text; that the photo does belong to the family and we need direct permission to use it; or something else. So I'm just laying the groundwork for whichever issue comes up next. Ocaasi (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
While Masesm and I are wording it different we are saying the same thing on this issue - How was the image itself obtained? I am saying if it was obtained illegally than the Image Use policy applies and as such it would render NFCC number 6 null. Masesm is saying if it was obtained illegally we simply can't use it. As the subject here is "non-free content" I have tried to tie this issue into the Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The sub-issues about being replaceable with text and using the image to draw attention to the article also relate to a non-free content review, and have been raised in other discussions as well - but if the focus should be on the first source (origin) than it needs to be solely on that issue - but it isn't and hasn't been, and that is, I am seeing, a huge part of this ongoing discussion. I have noticed in many of the NFCC based discussions criteria 6 is ignored or overlooked. If there is an RFC it should not be based on this image, it should be based on the wider implications of NFCC 6 and how it relates to, for images, the Image use policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
On copyright - Unless Egyptian copyright law is vastly different from that in the rest of the world, the copyright status of the image is not affected by whether or not the photographer had permission to make it. On fair use - There is nothing in WP:IUP#Moral_issues stating that taking a photograph in a place where permission is required, without first obtaining permission, automatically makes it "unfairly obtained" - the language there is primarily concerned with whether or not the image violates someone's privacy, e.g through-the-window shots of celebrities. What's more, to be "unfair" an image must be unfair to someone in particular. It is hard to see how the image could be considered unfair to the morgue itself, for example, when the morgue is not identifiable or really visible in the image. It is hard to argue that it is unfair to the victim, when his family seem to regard it as in his interests to have the image publicised. Thparkth (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, copyright belongs to the person who owns the photograph (the brother). The right to publicity also belongs to the heirs. Just because this image is published somewhere else, that does not give you permission to use it (here or anywhere else) under fair use. This image is not in the public domain. USchick (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, we don't need permission to use it under fair use; that's the whole point of fair use. As I noted above when I asked you if you were thinking about right to publicity, "Florida state law does prohibit commercial exploitation of the images of people (living or dead), but the statute explicitly limits that to 'purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' and excludes content used as 'part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes'. There's nothing that would suggest this would limit our fair use allowances to such an image."[http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/florida --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
USChick, that was not, in any sense, a clarification. Thparkth (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

RE: USchick - I know this was first posted in copyright questions but as it has since moved here the discussion is not about copyright, it is about non-free content. The non-free content policy is based on the idea that the materiel being used is under copyright *and* used without permission. It has already been established that this image is under copyright and, because the uploader at Wikipedia is not the copyright holder, it is also used without permission. At this point the discussion should not be about copyright or not censored but about the NFCC policy and how it relates to this image and underlying polices (such as the image use policy which is a required element of the NFCC for images). Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we need clarification. There are several discussions taking place here. I would like to separate each issue into its own separate discussion. Please advise the best way to do this. The issues currently being discussed that fall under Non-free content are:
1. Wikipedia:Non-free content: Images
2. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
3. Wikipedia:Image use policy
4. My original comment that started this post has not been settled.

The policy states: Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).

5. Any other issues that have been raised so far. USchick (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to address your original comment then. This is not an image from a press agency. Press agencies often distribute images which they do not own or have rights to for fair use editorial purposes. Merely being distributed by a press agency does not make something a press agency photo. Thparkth (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Edit to add: for an example of a non-press-agency image distributed by a press agency, see this file. Thparkth (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Since this is not a press agency photo, you can leave that part out and address the rest of the sentence: Use of historic images...must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts. USchick (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The rest of the sentence doesn't apply if it's not a press agency photo. Thparkth (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's correct; that does not apply to images that are not press agency photos. The rule was created to help us avoid unfair competition with such agencies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea where this is supposed to be going. There are no valid objections to the fair use of this photo no matter who holds copyright to it. There is definitely no "not copyrighted but they shouldna taken that photo" law. This discussion is over. Keep. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Now let's address the other issues.

Image Use discussion

Wikipedia:Image use policy Fair use images

Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate.

Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.

The fair use of this particular photo in this particular article is disputed. (See conversation above). USchick (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The disputed issues fall under several portions of Wikipedia:Image use policy: Requirements, Adding images, Fair use images, Privacy rights, Placement. Would you like to address them one at a time? USchick (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything here that hasn't been adequately discussed above? There is a definite element of going around in circles here. Thparkth (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few, mainly NFCC#8. Also, not every one reached consensus above, such as the immorality/illegality of the photo acquisition. I listed them all so we could stop going in circles and finalize each one. Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it meet the file description requirements?

  • The minimum requirement of: 2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. has not been met. The photo is linked to a copyrighted web page and we don't know what it says. It this a news agency? Then it's an agency photo, which goes back to the previous discussion. Please explain. USchick (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, they can publish it. What gives us the right to republish it off their copyrighted site?
  • Also, the minimum requirement of uploading the photo has not been met. It's hard to go from here, if we don't meet minimum requirements. USchick (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Web portal – presents information from diverse sources. Part of the difficulty is that we have no idea what this says. Does it say anything about where it was picked up from? A newspaper article? This is why the explanation on the tag provided by the uploader is so important. Here it's missing entirely. The minimum criteria has not been met and we can't make any decisions with no information. Someone needs to go back and fix the photo if they are interested in keeping it. USchick (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The requirement states: specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. The image is from the website linked at the page and this can be verified by clicking on the link. The website does not have to give us permission to republish the image; Fair Use gives us a legal exemption from their copyright since the image is of historic significance and cannot be replaced with a free image and also meets other Fair Use criteria which are included in the NFCC criteria. Ocaasi (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, since Maswary is using the image under Fair Use just like we would be, there is not copyright violation w/r/t Maswary. Ocaasi (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you verify any information by clicking on the link? If so, please summarize it in English in the "summary" section. Please include where the story came from and any other pertinent information relevant to its use on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you click on the link you see the photo on the page. What else would you expect? Ocaasi (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would expect to have the ability to verify information by reading what's on the page. Do you have this ability? If so, please be so kind and provide a summary for other people who may be interested in using this photo on Wikipedia. The ability to verify information is a minimum requirement. Without that, the photo is subject to deletion. USchick (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting there is a question whether the image at Maswary is actually of Khaled Said? Would you accept a google translation? Would you accept the translation of an arabic-speaking Wikipedia editor? Will you only accept an english language page with the photo on it? What could the page say that would change the opinion that the picture in the photo is the same picture that has been described all over the world as Khaled Said? Ocaasi (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the minimum requirement of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Image use policy #2 has not been met. This is a minimum requirement. Without that, the photo is up for deletion, and then it really doesn't matter how it can be used. This is not something you need to do for my benefit. I personally don't care if it gets deleted. USchick (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Not that Maswary is insufficient, but if we decide to use this image, from the We are all Khaled Said Facebook page, can we skip this point and move on to the rest? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=133983486640644&set=a.133967863308873.12078.133634216675571 Ocaasi (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you uploaded that somewhere? When you do, please make sure you meet the minimum requirements of uploading a photo so we don't have to come back here. USchick (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you answer the questions above please, relating to verification. I offer several ideas include Google Translate, an Arabic-speaking wikipedia editor, or if necessary an English language page with the same photo as an alternative. I'm asking if there is anything on the Maswary page that could change your opinion of its meeting the minimum requirements, so I then know what to include in the File Description. Ocaasi (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to use the original photo, I would think that at minimum, you would need to know how is it being used in that location. Is it a news story? Did it come from a published source? What are we looking at? I don't care what photo you use, as long as you have some understanding of what you're using. USchick (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure your expectation is actually required by our policy, but a translation of the page makes clear that it is a summary of the events surrounding his death. It includes: "Khalid Mohammed Said Al-Sobhy (28... Facebook Photos and pictures of the deceased before and after smashing his face and his skull." We already knew that. Is there anything else we need to know? Ocaasi (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake. :/ I've expanded the source and purpose, per the sourced comments above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Great!, So this is a news report on a web portal? Written by a journalist, blogger, eye witness? Is this something official and not just someone's personal web page?
  • Coming from a web portal (presents information from diverse sources) does it say if this story was reprinted from another source, like a publication? Sorry for asking, but this should have been already covered by whoever wanted it to be used in English.
I spoke with User:The Egyptian Liberal who has been in Egypt throughout the revolution and speaks Arabic. He explained that Masrawy is an Egyptian version of The Huffington Post. He emphasized that "Masrawy is not liberal, leftist or Islamist". About the authorship, he explained: "Ahmed Ahmed is the person who wrote the article and the end of the article he gives attribution to Ayman Nour". Ayman Nour is an internationally known Egyptian activist. Egyptian Liberal later found Nour's original post of the same article, with the image, on his Nour's Facebook blog: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=401681107698&id=103831656317.
Either way, there is no dispute that the image uploaded to Wikipedia came from the Masrawy post, that the image is Saeed, that it is the same image referred to by hundreds of RS. Policy requires that the source of the uploaded image can be verified, and it has been. Policy does not require that source of the image meet WP:RS if there is no dispute about the image (I think). Nour would be recognized as a highly authoritative WP:SPS.
Regardless, If you'd prefer we can have this same debate around the Facebook image (Arabic account: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=105400932843113&set=a.104265636289976.2684.104224996294040; English account: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=133983486640644&set=a.133967863308873.12078.133634216675571), either of which are directly described by multiple RS which refer to the image being placed there.
Also, if anyone is interested, Egyptian Liberal added about Saeed: "His death was such a shock to us due to this photo. Khaled was our youth version of the average joe in the middle class in Egypt. His death made many ppl think they or their kids could be next. that's why many ppl went out on the 25th. his death was the cause of our revolution..., and helping you keep this photo his least I can do for him seeing how he gave many Egyptian (Myself included) our freedom. His the Egypian version of Mohamed Bouazizi‎." (link to the talk page thread). Ocaasi (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My next question is:

Fair use images

Policy: Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. (Italics are in the policy. What does this mean?)

Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.

Would someone like to address how this policy applies specifically to this case? Thanks. USchick (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph does not apply, since we are only discussing using the file if the claim of fair use is valid. The first paragraph addresses the fact that US law is less strict than copyright laws in some parts of the world, but Wikipedia aims to make the encyclopedia fully accessible and usable by people anywhere in the world. This means sometimes what would be legal in the U.S. would be illegal elsewhere. Specifically to this case: Fair Use involves infringing the rights of the copyright holder. This means that the only Fair Use related legal liability a person using this image outside the U.S. might face could come from Saeed's family or Masrawy. Since Saeed's family has intentionally sought to distribute this photograph, that liability does not exist, and we can apply our Fair Use criteria without having to worry about violating our policies or putting a reader at risk. LinkOnline, the company which owns Masrawy.com also has no copyright claim to the photo except under Fair Use, so there should not be a Fair Use problem for readers outside of the U.S. due to Masrawy either. Ocaasi (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. Italics are in the policy. What does this mean? When would it be not appropriate? Can you point to some Wiki guidelines please? USchick (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's irrelevant to this conversation, if you don't have a specific reason to object. What's your next issue? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The short answer is that the Wikimedia Foundations set goal is to be a provider of free content. As for the various Wikipedia's the Foundation adopted a resolution that allows each one to sets its own EDP, which is the NFCC in the English Wikipedia. How that translates to to Image Use policy - because the goal here is be free the amount of non-free content is limited. The policy is one way, but the other way is considerations of the amount of material that is allowed. For example an article might have one non-free image that could be considered, but if it had 10 they would most likely be deemed excessive - even if every image met all 10 of the criteria. And then are images that may fall into the "shocking or explicit" category and in that case, even if they are free, it needs to be considered why they are being used. In the case of a non-free image the requirements would be even greater than if it were free, but the principal is the same. Also there is real world fair use and Wikipedia world non-free content - not every image that qualifies as fair use in the real world qualifies at English Wikipedia. Combine all of that and you have "not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright considerations for non-US copyrights, and Fair Use images
  • "The stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." These concerns are embodied in the above requirements that all non-free content must meet, and our policy of deleting non-compliant content. Being generous to the world sometimes means being hard on ourselves. Please understand that these rules are not arbitrary; they are central to our mission. Wikipedia distributes content throughout the world with no restrictions on how people use it. Legally, we could use any copyrighted material for ourselves that is either licensed to us by the owner, or that fits the definition of "fair use" under US copyright law. However, we favor content that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright. To honor its mission, Wikipedia accepts incoming copyright licenses only if they meet Wikipedia's definition of "free" use. This is a higher standard than we would need just for our own use. But our ability to use a work does not guarantee that others may use it. We reject licenses that limit use exclusively to Wikipedia or for non-commercial purposes. Commercial use is a complex issue that goes well beyond a company's for-profit status, another reason to be careful. In fact, we reject any licenses with significant limitations. That is not free enough. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Explanation of policy and guidelines
  • Similarly, Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meet U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations. Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Explanation of policy and guidelines
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing_copyright_law
  • Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style). This leads to possible restrictions on the use, outside of Wikipedia, of such "fair use" content retrieved from Wikipedia: this "fair use" content does not fall under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license as such, but under the "fair use" (or similar/different) regulations in the country where the media are retrieved. Wikipedia:Copyright#Reuser's_rights_and_obligations
  • Rationale: To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media; To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law; To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met: {NFCC criteria follow}. Wikipedia:Non free content

Basically, we can use the image under Fair Use, if it meets the 10 NFCC criteria. They are more strict than the US legal code's definition of Fair Use. NFCC is Wikipedia's own standard for applying Fair Use to our articles. If we meet all 10 NFCC criteria, we can use the image. Fair Use does not equal NFCC. NFCC is our standard, not Fair Use. Ocaasi (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at

NFCC criteria

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 2

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

Soundvisions1 said: Is this being distributed via a commercial content provider? In other words, right now if a paper were to use this image where would they "legally" obtain it? If they have to pay to use it than it fails Number 2 - Respect for commercial opportunities.

The photo cannot be sold unless the seller is the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the family who has been distributing the image without cost. If a paper uses this image, they copy it from somewhere online, as we will do, under Fair Use exemptions for copyright. It's possible some will have the original sent to them over email. In any case, there is no commercial opportunity for selling a file that is not owned or one that is being given away for free, and especially not for a low resolution photo of a disfigured corpse which has been spread all over the internet already. Ocaasi (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This does not answer the question: If you are a journalist who wants to use this photo legally, how would you get it? You would have to go to the family and negotiate its price for a limited use. If it's so easy to get it, please go get it so we can end this discussion right now. Get the release while you're at please! USchick (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also if everyone is getting it online, and using it so freely, and it's no big deal, please show just ONE credible source using it. USchick (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Your question again reflect a misunderstanding of Fair Use law. If you're a journalist, and you want to use the image, you do not get permission. That is what Fair Use means. It means you have a legal exemption from copyright to steal-someone-else's-stuff. Your question about credible sources is again circumstantial and not binding on policy in any way. It is also amero-centric and euro-centric; serious media in the Arab world did show this photo. Hundreds of thousands of people who joined We are All Khaled Saeed or El Shaheeed (the Arabic Facebook page) saw this photo. You are ignoring alternative explanations for why Western media did not show this photo, namely that they didn't want to gross out readers and they thought it would be bad for business or viewership. They have a different mission than we do and we do not need to reflect Western norms about decorum if there is a compelling reason to do so, as there is here. Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Western media is not the only acceptable source on English Wikipedia. Please show a credible source using it. Just one please. USchick (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the question and don't get off track. This discussion is about commercial opportunities. Please go back and address the question. USchick (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I answered the question and then responded to your follow-up. If you are going to have us answer every question again, please at least read the responses. There are no commercial opportunities because the family has been giving away the image for free, and every newspaper that wants to use it just steals it (legally) under Fair Use, and because no one is planning to sell a low-resolution image of a disfigured corpse that is all over the internet already. Does that answer the question? Ocaasi (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because the family has chosen to release it to some people (we don't know who they are) and the rest have stolen it legally or illegally, has nothing to do with commercial opportunities. The question is: If a commercial content provider wants to obtain this photo how do they do it?
They ask the family. The family says it's free and has been spread the world over to promote knowledge of the brutal killing of their relative (as the tens of RS which describe what happened with this photo mention?). Or they don't ask the family, and they use it legally, without paying for it--legally--under Fair Use. Our policy does not require that no money could ever be made off of selling the photo, only " the original market role of the original copyrighted media." There is no original market role for this media, since it was given away for free, so we are not interfering with it. Can move to the next question?
If this is true, what is the problem with us getting it from the family? Why not just email the Facebook page and get it from them with a release? Why are we here talking about it? Policy #1 No free equivalent. USchick (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You asked a hypothetical question and I gave a plausible answer. The practical answer is that no journalist would ask to use the photograph since they are already legally allowed to do so without asking and without paying. The reasons we would not ask the family are several: they recently lost their son; their country just went through a revolution; the mother lives in Alexandria but we don't know where and she is not computer savvy; the father passed away; the brother is also in Egypt but we don't know where; we don't know where the cousin is; we would have to track any or all of them down; it could take months to do; they might not speak English well; we would have to bother them with paperwork... In short, it would be inconvenient at least and potentially very difficult or even impossible, while the image's Fair Use (not NFCC) status is not in dispute. And the website is not necessarily affiliated with the family; they were just part of the same social movement. Also, Image Use Policy still applies, so we might as well discuss the issues here. Are you suggesting that if we can manage to get the photo from the family you are ok with using it at the article? Ocaasi (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) We're here talking about it because you removed the image from the article. Ocaasi (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
My question was not hypothetical. If you can get a free copy, go get it. USchick (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Go get it please. The rest of the comment addresses the practical difficulties around that option. If permission were to be granted, would you be ok with the photo on other grounds? Ocaasi (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi, you act like I own Wikipedia and I'm not letting you do something. If you have a photo with a release, you can load it to Commons and it will be available not only to you, but to the rest of the world. My original objection was copyright, remember? USchick (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I addressed the practical difficulty with acquiring permission from the family. Nor would it have bearing on the questions related to our Image Use Policy, or any of your points which focused on the image being unnecessary, illegal, immoral, or exploitative. My response reflects the pattern of our discussion. You have raised any possible objection, however technical, marginal, or improbable to keep this photo out. Some of the objections have merit and you're well within your right to ask, but you started with a claim that the image would be ok if the article was titled [Image of the Death of Khaled Said], suggested that we needed the family's permission to use the image, claimed we violated personality rights when the family owned them, and have thrown out anything else you could. NFCC#6 and NFCC#8 are completely worthwhile grounds for debate, and the illegality question is interesting although I think misguided. The rest have been walking in circles. Ocaasi (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This photo can not be used in this article because this photo is under copyright. If you want to talk about this photo with a release or a different photo, please produce the photo or the release and we'll talk about it. My personal opinion has nothing to do with it. USchick (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to add, there is a reason why the copyright law is in place and is enforced in this country, to keep people focused on the issue at hand and not get wrapped up in their personal feelings about a situation. My personal feelings are irrelevant. USchick (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The non-free-content review is happening because of copyright, as Fair Use and NFCC are exceptions to copyright. Whether we use the image of Saeed from Masrawy or Facebook or somewhere else, the issues will be the same, since the originating source of the issue is the same, and the content of the image is the same, and the Masrawy image already meets the minimum requirements for uploading, as could the others.
I never insinuated your feelings, only that your actual policy objections have been maximally and not always accurately geared towards preventing the image's use. Ocaasi (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 5

Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. There was a long discussion about this photo being too grotesque, and whether it should be shown above the fold or below the fold. If the content is so grotesque, how can it be encyclopedic? An encyclopedia is for all ages, including first grade. Can we get consensus that this content is encyclopedic?

  • Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms...Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. Wikipedia:Not censored
  • Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Wikipedia:Offensive material
It is Policy that Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles about sex and paraphilias, religious cartoons, wars, and other offensive topics. Some of those topics are illustrated with pictures that are also considered offensive to many, explicit, or grotesque. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not for all ages. Parents and schools are expected to make individual editorial decisions to protect children. Have you seen Fisting, Blowjob, Double penetration, or Ejaculation? Those are serious pages which have encyclopedic value because they describe subjects that have received attention from reliable sources; they are also part of the world we live in, and something some people want to know about. Wikipedia has a mission to serve all encyclopedic content to the world, not to serve encyclopedic content which is appropriate for children. However, images which are shocking are expected to be included for a compelling reason. It is not considered appropriate to include images of war simply to illustrate the war. But in the case of this image, the photo itself is an artifact of a historical event--not merely an illustration of an event. The image was instrumental to creating communities of online activists, to initiating protests and galvanizing protesters, and ultimately overthrowing Mubarak's regime. See the sources above in More Source. Ocaasi (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to address the articles about Fisting, Blowjob, Double penetration, and Ejaculation. The images used in those articles are illustrations. All of them are in Wikimedia Commons and available for use in an encyclopedia to educate about the subject matter. The video for Ejaculation is in the public domain. The image we're discussing is a photograph under copyright, not an illustration, not in Commons, not available for use, and not a good comparison. It serves no educational purpose, and its original use was intended to start a riot. USchick (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That an encyclopedia or Wikipedia is supposed to be safe for kids is obviously not supported. And their safety would be affected regardless of the copyright or public domain status of an image.
Whether this image serves an educational purpose or not is what we are discussing in the NFCC8 section. Please see the comments there.
To your point that the image was originally intended to start a riot, I'll just say that the peaceful overthrow of a 30-year military dictatorship of the 2nd most powerful country in the Middle East by a multi-denominational, mutli-gender, pro-human rights, democratic revolution is about as far from a riot as possible. Please read the historical sources before you make any other suggestions. This article is a good place to start: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/02/21/egypt.internet.revolution/index.html .Ocaasi (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion here is whether or not the content in the photo is encyclopedic. This is directly related to how a photo is being used in an article to illustrate the subject being discussed. I'm simply pointing out that the articles you were using as examples are illustrations from Commons. This photo is not an illustration on Commons, and according to you, it was originally used to create an outcry that led to a revolution. You said, "The photo of Saeed's corpse was released onto the internet in June of 2010, causing a large outcry… Without this image the revolution in Egypt might not have happened. That is not an overstatement. Ocaasi (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011." You probably said other things, but I don't feel like searching. USchick (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Outcry (noun) - A widespread or vehement protest. (Perhaps the word riot was too strong on my part, sorry. Sincere apology, not kidding.) This photo has been successful at creating an outcry here as well, against its inappropriate use (due to copyright). USchick (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
My bad on one point; I didn't see the section header and thought NFCC8 (improving the reader's understanding) would encompass its being encyclopedic. I'll address that last.
Again, an image's copyright status does not impact whether it is encyclopedic. They are separate issues and many images that are completely owned and unusable would make great additions if we could purchase their rights. In this specific section on encyclopedic-ness, copyright is extraneous.
The photo of Saeed's corpse was released onto the internet in June of 2010, causing a large outcry… Without this image the revolution in Egypt might not have happened. That is not an overstatement. Indeed, but a) the purpose of the image's release does not effect whether or not it is encyclopedic, and b) the outcry it caused were peaceful protests of the brutal treatment which led to the overthrow of Mubarak's dictatorial regime, not "a riot". An dictionary will likely not provide the necessary context for you, since 'outcry' can be violent or nonviolent. However the tens of RS I provided might. Please familiarize yourself with the event if you are going to make claims about it or interpret mine without the context I've provided in multiple sources. That way your outcry will be informed by a deep and specific understanding of events rather than general reactions about a hard-to-look-at photo. I can see why you feel the way you do, it just isn't grounded in policy or sources in this specific case. Maybe your outcry is wrong?
Last, solely whether or not an image is grotesque does not mean it is not encyclopedic. Quoting from Wikipedia:Offensive material, which is a Guideline and not Wikipedia:Not censored, which is a Policy: "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. So the question is whether its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. For one, that is very similar to NFCC#8, and it might be better to keep the discussion there. My argument would be that without this photograph, the reader loses the information of the photograph, and that no textual description can replace it. Moreover, the reader cannot see the artifact which Egyptians saw unless they are looking at the actual image. Although a great textual description could give readers a good idea of the photograph, it could never be as accurate as the actual photograph. And an article about the death of Saeed, which became significant largely because of the way this specific photograph was used, would be less relevant if the photograph was not included. So on all of those grounds I believe NFCC#5 is met.
The issues of 'taste' and 'exploitation', whether we do our readers well by potentially shocking them, and whether we offend Saeed's legacy by publishing his photo are: a) not if it is handled in a considerate way with editorial tact as it currently is, and b) no, likely the opposite. As for whether or not explicit or grotesque images should as a rule be excluded from the encyclopedia, I think policy and consensus are clearly against that, although there is agreement that there must be a good reason to do so and that it must be done well. On both counts this case meets or exceeds those.
If you don't want me to write so much in response, feel free to be more careful in your objections. It's easier to respond concisely when they are more precise and accurate. Ocaasi (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Using an actual photograph and using this photograph are two different things. For example, this photograph [8] is also under copyright, but it has been published in a credible media outlet, and qualifies under "fair use." Would you be interested in using it? USchick (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundvisions1 said: Wikipedia is not in the "business" to simply be exploitative. Wikipedia is not supermarket tabloid fodder. The policy Rules of thumb even indicates that - Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article.

The photo is not being used simply to be exploitative. Please read the arguments on this page. The image does not bring attention to the article; in fact, the image was placed below the fold as a courtesy to readers. Nor is the image only available on Wikipedia, so it would not be necessary to lure people here. But it is an important photograph and an important piece of history. Moreover, the claim of exploitation falls particularly flat since Saeed's family, indeed the entire community of activists in Egypt wanted this photo shared with the world so Saeed's sacrifice would not be forgotten. That is not a mission Wikipedia need take on, but suffice to say that the photo does more to honor than to exploit. Again, the sources in More Source explain it's significance through multiple RS Ocaasi (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 6 Media-specific policy

Image use policy: Privacy rights: What are public and private places?

  • The morgue has been identified as a private place. This criteria fails the test. USchick (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Privacy rights are designed to protect the privacy of the person being photographed. Saeed was dead at the time, his legacy entrusted to his family members. His family members violated only Egyptian law by taking Saeed's photo to disprove the claims of Egyptian police that he had merely choked while swallowing a bag of marijuana. They did not violate Saeed's privacy. That they shared the image with the world after they took it is further testament to this. That Florida has an exception for the rights to publicity of the deceased if it is for an education purpose renders the liability issue for the WMF moot. Ocaasi (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the image violate Saeed's privacy rights? (Yes, No, Maybe)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 6 Media-specific policy

  • Image use policy: Legal issues

There are a variety of non-copyright laws which may affect the photographer, the uploader and/or the Wikimedia Foundation, including defamation, personality rights and privacy rights.

  • Personality rights The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the Right of Publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).
If the photo was illegally obtained, can we use it?
  • No. From reading the policy above, this person's personal rights were violated when this photo was illegally acquired and then released to the public. Even if it was taken by a relative. Even if it was released with good intentions. By continuing to disseminate the photo, the uploader and Wikimedia Foundation are infringing on the privacy rights of the individual in the photo. USchick (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Nullified by the 3rd section : The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes --MASEM (t) 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide an example where this photo was used in a bona fide news report. This is not clear because Moonriddengirl said, "Masrawy is not a news agency." See discussion: Does it meet the file description requirements? I asked if the writer is an official reporter, and that question was ignored. USchick (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter: the issue here is that we are a publication making a presentation with a current and legitimate public interest; and we are not using the name and likeness for advertising purposes (i.e. not to endorse a particular product). Therefore we are covered by the statute -- which is the question at issue. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about anybody else's use of the image. We're talking about whether Wikipedia's use of the image is permissible. Note that the statute specifically includes the word "book". No, we're not journalists in the sense of writing up original stories -- but we are using the image as part of a presentation with a current and legitimate public interest. Jheald (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notJournalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USchick (talk • contribs)
  • I am pretty sure we qualify under or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest. "Publication as part of a presentation having a current and legitimate public interest". --MASEM (t) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that only news agencies are reliable sources on Wikipedia? (Do you know what a news agency is? It is not a news outlet; web portals can be news outlets.) That the image is historically significant is documented in multiple reliable sources, and there are multiple reliable sources (including Facebook) for the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Moonriddengirl, I don't care what source you produce, it's not me you need to satisfy. Please produce a credible source acceptable by Wikipedia standards WP:SOURCES to satisfy criteria #2. Policy:Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such as Masrawy and Facebook. USchick (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Your question is a bit confusing. You've acknowledged repeatedly that you don't know what Masrawy is; why do you now say that they have a poor reputation for checking the facts or no editorial oversight? (We need to be careful to avoid WP:SYSTEMIC.) But, let's assume for the sake of argument that it turns out that Masrawy is an unreliable source; Facebook is the primary source for this image, as is attested by multiple reliable sources. We do have the option of using the Facebook picture to replace this one. WP:PRIMARY permits the use of primary sources when "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". That completely eliminates this concern. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"--covered. There are a number of news sources that discuss the image, some of which are now included in the image description itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please read the discussion about criteria #2 above. This photo is under copyright and has not been featured in a credible source by these standards WP:SOURCES. That's why I was asking someone to identify what is Masrawy, because we don't know by looking at the link. I don't care what source you use or what photo you use as long as it does not infringe on copyright or Wiki policy. If you can find a different photo that is not subject to copyright, please upload it and again, meet the basic requirements of uploading a photo. :-) USchick (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 6 Media-specific policy

  • Image use policy: Moral issues

Policy: Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:

  • Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
  • Those that are unfairly obtained
  • Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life

Policy: These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Policy: The extent to which a particular photograph is "unfair" or "intrusive" will depend on the nature of the shot, whether it was taken in a public or private place, the title/description, and on the type of subject (e.g., a celebrity, a non-famous person, etc). This is all a matter of degree. A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community; a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable, depending on what is shown and how it is presented.

  • The photo was taken in a morgue (private place), after someone was bribed (unfairly obtained). According to policy, these "types of image are normally considered unacceptable." USchick (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense. A morgue being a private place means a PERSON is entitled to expect privacy there - it doesn't mean the place itself has privacy rights. Bribing someone to take a picture doesn't make it unfairly obtained - you are completely missing the point of what "unfairly obtained" means. It means that the image was obtained on a way that was unfair to the person depicted, an argument that is utterly defeated in these circumstances - when the inheritors of his rights and the guardians of his interests have deliberately made the picture public. Thparkth (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The person tn the morgue was entitled to privacy and that privacy was violated. USchick (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, the person in the morgue was entitled to have the charges against him made public, to see the evidence brought against him heard by an impartial judge or jury, to face his accusers in a court not a stairwell, to be protected from search without cause, to not have the police retaliate for his exposing their corrupt activity, to not have his head bashed in, to not be dropped in an alley and pronounced dead, and to not have his autopsy conducted by a conspirator to hide the conditions of his death. Then he had the right to be seen by his family in his post-mortem state, the right to have demonstrated the horrific implausibility that his death was caused by "choking" on a bag of marijuana and falling onto the street, the right to let the world use his image in mutual recognition of disgust and inspiration of resolve to not let others or their families experience that tragedy again, and the right for his legacy to be the overthrow of a 30 year dictator and the reform of an entire nation. He had no privacy in that morgue that could be violated. His human rights had already been stripped, as had the life from his body, and his clothes. There was no privacy violation. No shred of dignity would have been saved by his being buried silently and without evidence to contradict the state's claims. Doing so would been relegating his death to meaninglessness based on a technicality. Should we understand policy the same way? Ocaasi (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 8

Contextual significance. 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.

  • This was a question raised by User:Masem

Does adding this picture aid in the reader's understanding to consider it an exception to NFCC rules? Part of that question is if we really need to show the battered head of a victim to draw attention to the article when it really doesn't need it. We're not talking about censoring here, but using a decorum of sense that, hey, people looking for information on this probably don't need to see the battered photo to get an idea for what happened to the victim. My take, given everything else, is no, its not needed. Text is sufficient to describe that this person was killed brutally.

Soundvisions1 said: Contextual significance. In most all cases this is meant to require some sort of sourced commentary on the image itself as it relates to the overall image (what is contained in the image). In other words is the material needed to understand the text contained in the article itself. In the most simple terms - if text said "fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken nose, and numerous other signs of trauma" is an image needed in order to understand those words? Offensive images reaffirms the same points by saying Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Wikipedia:Offensive material expands on that.

Is the shocking image used simply to bring attention to the article?
  • Not every editor over the last few months feels that this image is needed and several have said that they feel this is using an image simply to bring attention to the article. It is a valid concern based on a valid policy, however those who have voiced it have been meet with loud(er) "Wikipedia is not censored." Not every person will agree on what is shocking or what is graphic (too graphic) or even exploitation. The context of how and why this image came into being is somewhat clouded however it appears the reason it was spread was for exploitation - in other words an image of a battered person person, who died as a result of their injuries, was used to incite people. The graphic nature of it added to that. (Keep in mind the exact same kind of exploitation happened to Rodney King, Daniel Pearl, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, Faris Odeh and numerous others) However one needs to take it use here and ask what the reason is. The answer to that, as this is a non-free image, would also tie into the NFCC. For me I can assume good faith that the editor who placed this into various articles were not hoping more people would read the articles because of the image, but felt they were illustrating the overall subject of the articles. On the other hand, after reading the many comments in various locations there appear to be those who simply want to use it because it is graphic and because "Wikipedia is not censored", in which case it could be seen as solely being used to draw attention to the article. (In other words words "We can use it because Wikipedia is not censored so we can use it...not because it is really needed") This is part of the balance when this type of material is being used. Sometimes it is extremely clear when material is only being used to draw attention, and other times it isn't. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Adding this image would not be an exception to NFCC rules, simply complying with them. The sense of 'decorum' you suggested is a nice idea, however, in an article titled [Death of Khaled Said] which is notable for the brutality implied by the image and the national and international outrage it sparked, where the image is historically significant, where tens of credible RS identify the photo's role in the overthrow of Mubarak, a sense of decorum is simply not the best we can. There are at times more important things than being polite or unoffensive. This is one of them. At the very least, there are reasonable considerations for including the image, and this NFCC discussion should not hinge on something that can and has be discussed at the article page among editors. Let me ask a question: If Wael Ghonim had posted to his facebook page--instead of the photo of Saeed's mangled face--merely a text description of what his face looked like, would the revolution have happened? Also the part you are not addressing is: if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. The article could not explain, could not demonstrate the force of this image, could not present the historical artifact which became a tool of protesters, could not catalogue--the way encyclopedias catalogue--the most important piece of media related to Saeed's death. You are simply asking the wrong question; instead ask, what does this image add to the article? The answer is that it adds a full and accurate portrayal of the history of the death of Khaled Said and its impact; it adds the actual image which was passed from family to protester; it adds credence to the claim that Saeed's death was not an accident; it illustrates the signifacnce of his death and of the photograph itself. Ocaasi (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the photo significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding?
  • Yes, describing the image in just text is not explanatory enough to show why the image became historical and why it also created an international outcry and, itself, became the rallying cry of one of the main group of the revolution. There is already a consensus on the talk page and at the deletion review that this is the case. SilverserenC 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No. The chain of logic is : family, learning of their son's death and possible brutality, got the picture and distributed said picture. This picture showed the son's head, battered, beaten, bleeding, and horribly disfigured. (there are sources that describe what that picture looked like, so we're not pleading that the case that this is a gruesome picture). That picture riled the population further leading to the revolution in Egypt. Note that at no point is the actual visual of the image necessary to appreciate how that that chain of logic flows. So while one could argue that the picture meets the first part of significant understanding of the article, it fails the second, in that the omission of the image would not be detrimental to that understand because what is in that picture is clearly sourced and can be discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    This is not merely about a chain of logic, and our bar for "understanding" should not be capped at a literal flow-chart of events. Good reference material goes far beyond that. Some images are so visually compelling that there is no substitute for seeing them. Even a textual description which did justice to the level of brutality in the photo could not let the reader encounter "the actual artifact". As an encyclopedia, we have an affirmative reason to collect the sources and media which bear on a subject. Imagine taking out of all of our articles on art--the paintings, or all of our articles on poems--the excerpts, or all of our articles on math--the formulas (a bit different but not entirely). Some things cannot be described in words, and not for want of language or sourcing, but because the image itself is the content. One can make broader arguments that we live in a visual culture in which textual media is less persuasive for many; that it is a century-old maxim that a photograph has more potency and impact that a description of a scene; that seeing the actual photo which had a historic impact is a qualitatively different kind of "understanding" then simply reading it existed. Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    "Visually compelling" is not an allowed reason to use an image. And yes, actually, the visual arts people do have complaints about this aspect, but they have figured out way to make due, generally by finding sources that talk about the details of the visual artwork that have been commented on by experts and would require the picture of the work to understand what they say. Here, it is a blurry photo of the deformed head of a dead person. No disrespect to what resulted afterwards, but there's very little more one can say about the image actually looks like beyond that. The reader can understand the topic of the picture without being shown the picture, thus failing NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    While I agree with the basic principle you mention, I really can't agree with your conclusion that the picture doesn't significantly increase the understanding. I'm sorry to say that I'd never heard of this individual prior to learning of the existence of this picture. When I first saw it, my first thought was that it was excessive. Then I read the article. (Similarly, I find many of the images in Nanking Massacre horrible to look at, but important to understanding the subject. The Nanking images are PD, but if they did not add to the understanding of the article, their use would be purely gratuitous.) I think that showing a morgue picture (though I agree with "below the fold") is an important part of helping readers to understand the impact that the picture had on the Egyptian public. No words can convey that. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    The photo does at least increase understanding in some ways and removing it would be detrimental to those; how significant the loss of understanding depends on how much one values seeing the artifact itself, how one processes visually versus textually, the extent to which one thinks words can fully convey what the image shows, and the particular interest one has in seeing for oneself the evidence which contradicted the state's claim that this death was an accident. Reading about the photo is a great thing, but I don't think it is a substitute for seeing what actually motivated Egyptians to action. This situation is also significantly different than works of art, because the rightsholders of those works have not tried to distribute them. There is no commercial implication or realistic liability here. The choice of excluding the photo on the those grounds is less relevant to copyright than it is simply an editorial preference, since the copyright we are violating is not one that would plausibly be invoked against us.)Ocaasi (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    There is no commercial implication or realistic liability here. The choice of excluding the photo on the those grounds is less relevant to copyright than it is simply an editorial preference, since the copyright we are violating is not one that would plausibly be invoked against us. That's not the way we work. Either we believe the image clears fair use or we don't; otherwise, you get permission. We don't operate on the presumption that they won't mind without explicit proof that they don't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    That's fine, it was secondary to my point on policy. I do think, extraneously, we can at least acknowledge whether or not legal action is likely. I'm not suggesting it replace any of the discussion, only that two of our motivations for having a copyright policy is to neither harm the copyright holder or harm the foundation--and neither is remotely likely here. Ocaasi (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not disagreeing with Moonriddengirl's point, but I would urge that it would help convince retention of the image if there was reliable sources that described the amount of damage and injury before death in the photo as excessive or brutal or whatever. It strengthens the case that this was a drastically exceptional image showing injuries far worse than expected or the like, and thus what fueled the people to rebel. Eg, a source (or more) that identify the gore of the image as what drove the people to rebel and not just the fact it was evidence that the man was beaten badly. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know if I can do much better than Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#More_Source. Those RS clearly identify the image as the catalyst for protesters. Frankly, that is the bar that needs to be met. Whether the effect of the photo was from the image's brutality per se or because that brutality convinced people the police's statement Saeed had died from asphyxiation and a fall was a ridiculous lie, or that it simply was evidence that someone young and middle-class could be beaten to death--doesn't matter. The image is what had the effect regardless. But on the merits, yes, multiple RS already provided identify the brutality in the photo as what shocked them and motivated them. How you can distill brutality from the beating/from the cover-up/ is a matter for chemists or philosophers. In short, the brutal image showed the police lied; the brutal image shocked and motivated people; the police's actions motivated people; the regime's cover-up motivated people. The image was the vehicle which presented all of this. The RS are unequivocal about it. Ocaasi (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches 8. Significance. There is a difference between being significant to the topic and being significant to the understanding of the topic. A "non-free" image must be the latter. The article is Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, with a very graphic description. I'm not sure how much more dead he can be. In addition, many demonstrations were showing posters like this [10]. Only the person who took the photo saw him in the morgue. This may seem trivial to some, it would be much more appropriate to show people protesting with posters, since that's what happened. USchick (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not that he died, but how he died, what his death caused, and why it was significant. To those ends, the photo increases understanding significantly. Your comment above, "I'm not sure how much more..." is bordering on tactless. Please use a little more thought next time. Ocaasi (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty wiped; I've been working all evening to get some ground on a major work project. :) But to me, the encyclopedic use of this image rests in its historic significance, in that it evidently inspired an uprising. One of the reasons it did so is because the image contradicts the report of officials that Saaed died of "after he swallowed a bag that contained marijuana." (per [11]; that's the source that says that "the grisly morgue photo went viral and the public had a rallying point." It is the photograph itself that inspired the public. It has become iconic: [12] notes that "Said's death, and a photograph taken by his older brother Ahmed, showing him covered with bruises, his teeth broken and jaw smashed, caused an outcry across Egypt" (emphasis added) and that "many members of the social networking site have put his picture as their profile pictures." The Associated Press noted that protesters actually held the image during protests (see image and caption). In the article below it, executive director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies is paraphrased as crediting specifically the graphic visual imagery for drawing attention to the issue. NATO described the pictures as "a shocking, viral sensation." While ABC news titled their article "Egypt: The Face That Launched A Revolution", also crediting specifically the visuals with galvanizing reaction and noting that the image was held aloft during protests. I think the article could certainly be improved to emphasize the incredible importance of these images to the events that followed, but I honestly believe this is about as clear a case of an historic image (and there is sourced commentary to that) that I've ever seen. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in talking about what is tactless, according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, #5 for Non-free content: Example that fails: The use of this image to illustrate David Hasselhoff would likely violate the necessity of maintaining "basic human dignity"... the image fails to maintain "a high degree of sensitivity". It also addresses Article-specific criteria as it relates to #8: That a person appeared on the cover of a magazine, for example, generally would not need an image of the cover to convey the understanding that the appearance occurred. In such a case, simply stating "John Smith appeared on the cover of Fictitious Magazine on 1 January 2002" would be sufficient. USchick (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Would omission of the obscene image cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and is no equally suitable alternative available (Wikipedia:Offensive material)?
  • Yes. Wikipedia is not censored as a Policy, but this image itself has a unique historical significance well beyond that... because it is shocking. That grotesque visual nature can not be replaced merely by describing it in accurate grotesque language. More importantly, the reader should be able to see the photo which actually had the historical impact in the real world. It was not a description of Saeed's death which changed the course of history in Egypt, but this specific image. Ocaasi (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10

Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

a)Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.

b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.

c)The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Has this been done?

a) Identification of the source of the material
Policy Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free: For non-free content, each image page must include: A statement describing the source of the media.
What is the source of the media? Masrawy is a web portal that gathers information from other sources. According to the tag, Ahmed Ahmed posted it, but he is not identified as the author. Where did the story come from?
I believe you are reading a requirement into the policy that is not there, and mis-using the word "source" but I can answer all 3 ways that apply: 1) The source of the image is Khaled Saeed's brother Ahmad Saeed, who took the photo at the morgue where the autopsy was performed; 2) The source of the article on Masrawy is famous Egyptian activist Ayman Nour who posted it on his [Facebook] blog; Masrawy; 3) The source of the photo is Masrawy, where Ahmed Ahmed reposted Ayman Nour's article. Frankly, it's not clear if the digital version at Masrawy is the identical digital version from Nour's blog post, nor does policy require we find out. It's also not clear where Nour got the photo from, so the chain from Saeed's cousin to Nour is unclear. And again, policy does not require we know every step which an image took to get to where we use it from. That is the wrong definition of source, which in this case, refers to 'the place from which the image was uploaded' and not 'the place from which the image was created' or 'the place from which the uploaded image was right before it was at the place it was uploaded from' The images are meaningfully identical and ultimately all trace back to Saeed's brother, who, along with his family distributed the photograph, and whose copyright claim NFCC is going to legally and Wikipedially violate no matter which one we use.
*Nour's Facebook blog is here: [13]. From either there or Wael Ghonim's facebook post, or Masrawy, the image's reliability is not in question; it's the same image described by hundreds of RS.
This was addressed in response to you here Ocaasi (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the description page. The source of this article was a Facebook page? Would you like to go back and address how Facebook qualifies as a bona fide credible news source? USchick (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate fact that Wikipedians cannot always agree with one another. Fortunately, policy does take that into account. Obviously, you remain unconvinced; I, on the other hand, believe that this more than meets policies and guidelines, including in indicating its source. I guess we'll just have to wait and see where consensus falls. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Facebook is a publishing platform. In it's capacity as a blog it is a Self-published source. These are not usually reliable unless they are written by someone with recognized expertise. Ayman Nour is a former member of the Egyptian parliament. He was imprisoned by the Mubarak regime in 2005 and released in 2009. He is an internationally recognized activist. He is, in short, one of the more credible sources on Egyptian politics in the entire world, especially on the subject of human rights abuses. He is certainly reliable enough to trust that the photo of Saeed in his writing is accurate.
As WP:V explains, sources are reliable in the context of the information they are supporting. In this context, that claim is a photograph of Khaled Saeed posted on an Egyptian news portal Masrawy that has been compared to the Huffington Post. The Masrawy article is a repost of credible Egyptian activist, Ayman Nour. The photograph's origin and accuracy are not disputed, as hundreds of RS refer to it as coming from Saeed's brother. Those same RS also confirm that the image was posted at Wael Ghonim's Facebook page, We are all Khaled Said. You can look at it and see the same photograph. And if you look at the [More Source] section above, you'll note that Wael Ghonim's Facebook page is largely credited with being the focal point for Egyptian activists during the revolution which took place in January and February of this year. Perhaps some of this stuff sounds arcane or insufficient, but it won't make sense unless you read the RS I have provided.
I'll update the image description to add these details in case someone doesn't think it currently is detailed enough. If you'd prefer one of the other Facebook photos be used rather than Masrawy.com, that's fine. They are all the same and sufficiently reliable. Ocaasi (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As WP:V also explains: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. You may also wish to review WP:NONENG. I don't understand why I'm having to beg experienced editors and administrators to meet minimum requirements for sources. USchick (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because you are misunderstanding its application here. For instance, most of the non-free book covers are reproduced from commercial sources which would not be acceptable as verification for facts in articles, but which are ample for replicating the image. The copyright does not belong to these commercial sources. We don't have to scan the book cover ourselves to upload it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I don't understand why this article is exempt from meeting minimum requirements. USchick (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the commercial source of this photo? USchick (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's kind of my point. You seem to be attempting to apply WP:V to the source for this image. That has absolutely nothing to do with the image description page: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10. The source is fully identified. There are no issues with that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to you example about a non-free book cover. This is a non-free photo. USchick (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Book covers are also non-free. But you seem to be missing the point; Amazon isn't a reliable source for most WP:V purposes either, but it's a fine source for an image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To try and give an accurate response to this "sub header" as it relates to both prior publication and source. For non-free content the idea was that the content had to have been previously published. This was not meant to mean sticking an image in places like a personal blog, social networking site or a Flickr account. It was meant to go hand in hand with the Image use policy as well as the wider Wikipedia policies. In short: Wikipedia no longer accepts "free" material that is non-commercial, no derivatives, Wikipedia use only and the like. The only way such material can be used is via the non-free content policy. The prior publication is key because if we allowed a self published source such as Flickr or Facebook to be considered a true publication than suddenly Wikipedia would be back to accepting non-acceptable restrictions. Facebook is not "a publishing platform" for non-free content a Wikipedia.

Secondary comments on Cover art (i.e- a book cover): This in one area where some uses are somewhat "exempt" from the policy when used "correctly". The wider consensus at Non-free Content has been that non-free cover art is allowed in articles about the product the cover art is from. An article on a book can use the book cover in the main info-box - no questions asked. An album cover can be used in the main info-box about the album - no questions asked. However the same cover art used in an article that is not about the product the cover is from falls back onto having to meet all 10 of the criteria. That would mean the article needs to have textual context for the cover art itself - not simply saying "Blah blah blah, wrote a book, blah blah blah". Now back to the image in question - it is not cover art of any kind so any questions or concerns about covert are not relevant.

The only relevant item might be the prior publication element. Notice I say "might" - this is because of the still debated source of the image (Not the illegal first obtaining in-camera original source, but the source/s beyond that). If this image only was on Facebook and blogs it would not meet the requirements of prior publication. However if someone could point to, say, an issue of of Time magazine, or the NY Times, or Newsweek, or a similar non self published source these issues could be put to rest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already point out that is reproduced in an AP photo that shows it being held above people's heads during protests. We can't use the AP photo, of course. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not see that here under this subheader (Becuase it isn't) - but this is why I said below this thread is now so much of a CF most of the on topic discussion/s might get lost. I had to look around to find your mention of an A.P photo - It is under the Does the photo significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? discussion and I see USchick linked to one that show protesters with the Facebook images and you linked to some other protesters where the image is not so clear (Protesters clash with police at a recent anti-brutality rally in Cairo.). So in regards to a source - none of those are the source of the photo being discussed. If *this* photo were cropped from *that* photo it would clearly fail because it would be re-purposing a commercial content providers work. But unless the image itself were discussed we would not be able to use the A.P photo of the protesters...plus, A.P or not, there is no need to see an image of protesters to understand there were protesters, even if the text said "Protesters held up images of a Khaled Saeid during a demonstration". Of course even if this were a free image it would have to be pointed out that a derivative could not be made to simply make it into this...but certainly a free image showing protesters with the image would render the need for this non-free image null. Of course that simple fact now brings back the whole issue of a possibility of free replacement to serve the same purpose. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Any way you turn it, it fails under all criteria for #2, 5, 6, 8 AND 10. Is anyone ready to proceed to mediation or have you had enough? USchick (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Proceed to mediation?! Masem has already explained to you at your talk page that "an uninvolved admin will review the discussion and make the determination of consensus." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's what I meant. This is my first time here, sorry for not knowing all the terms and procedures. Thank you for taking this matter seriously and for devoting so much time and energy. USchick (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. No, mediation would involve moving to yet another forum. As to my involvement, I didn't intend to really get involved at all, beyond commenting on legal issues, but the situation is very moving. While working on the article, I was reading a source that described how his mother wept when the revolution succeeded and thinking that at least she has some sense of vindication for her son. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Does the file have the right image copyright tag?
  • Yes, it had the right tag before anyways, it's just that there were questions about other things in relation to it. The tag was never used in the wrong way as it was. SilverserenC 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Image copyright tag policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Enforcement: To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. USchick (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's convincing to me. It may not be convincing to you, but unanimous agreement is not necessary for consensus. I (previously uninvolved) have read both your arguments and those of the people who think it appropriate and been persuaded. The administrator who reads this will determine where consensus lies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

That's all for now. USchick (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Were the photos immorally obtained or would publishing them be immoral?

  • No, we've already covered that above. I don't even see what morality has to do with legality anyways, but we've already explained for both of those above. SilverserenC 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the image have an unknown or unverifiable origin?

  • No. Multiple RS link the photo to Saeed's brother who took the photo at the morgue where Saeed's autopsy was performed. Saeed's cousin then uploaded the photo to the internet, as multiple RS also describe. Ocaasi (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the image the subject of commentary?

  • This is where the policy can get tricky. Certain classes of images have "exemptions" in the sense it is considered the articles subject is the needed "critical commentary". For example cover art - an article on a film can use a one sheet because it illustrate the "product". However for "historic" images it is most often considered a requirement to discuss the image itself, not so much what is going on in the image. There is a thin line between the needed "critical commentary"/"sourced commentary" and the subject of the article, but the idea is twofold - because Wikipedia strives to be free the amount of non-free content is limited *and* the content of the material needs to be considered in the context of the article itself. If an article about an uprising used a non-free image of one person simply to illustrate one of the hundreds/thousands of participants it may be considered not needed. However if a non-free image actually showed the hundreds/thousands of participants it would hold more weight that it is actual related to the text. So in this case the image was being used in two articles - one about a wider event, and one about the subject of the image. (As opposed to the image itself) In the article about the wider event, even if the subject of the image is mentioned, it is not really a "must have" image - in the scope of the overall article the image itself in only a small portion. In the article about the subject who appears in the image there is certainly more weight to include the image however the "fine line" comes into play. Part of the NFCC requires the consideration if text alone could convey the same point. I, personally, feel the text alone does convey what the image illustrates, and certainly by the amount of "sources" that appear here I have would have no "need" to *see* the image because text alone does a good job of describing it. This same idea applies to other, like, articles - Execution of Saddam Hussein does a very good job of vividly describing his death, and there is no real "need" to see it. Daniel Pearl became more "famous", not because he was kidnapped, but because he was beheaded - yet the article does a good job of describing that, so much so there is not any "need" to actually see it. (And I would argue the single frame grab for the video is not "needed" to illustrate he was kidnapped - although I doubt as many people would cyber yell that Wikipedia is not censored in that discussion) To me the exceptions to any of these would be if there was an article on the material itself. Certainly there has been an underlying concept that this image is very iconic, very historical and very important. I challenge the editors who feel that to look at the Phan Thị Kim Phúc article, the Faris Odeh article, the Tank Man article - even the More Demi Moore and Dewey Defeats Truman articles - and create an article about the image itself. USchick has provided more than enough sources on this very page to do that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Soundvisions, half the articles you linked to are not about the image itself. Phan thi Kim Phuc is about the person, as is Faris Odeh and Tank Man. Only More Demi Moore and Dewey Defeats Truman are articles about images. Although the first three contain substantial coverage of the images which made those individuals famous, so can the Khaled Saeed article, which was really only named Death of Khaled Saeed as a BLP1E concession, and should probably be changed now that his historical place is virtually assured. So if we're comparing the article to Demi and Dewey, I don't think there's really any question that they were both known for many things aside from their iconic images (such as their great legs and ground-breaking roles in special-ops movies). The point I'm making is that the article about Saeed is very similar to Kim Phuc, Odeh, and Tank Man, and those articles do include the iconic image. So I'm not sure how that leads us in a different direction, since Saeed's notability centers around the image. If we made a separate article about it, there wouldn't be any content or notability left just for him. Ocaasi (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The significance of the images from the morgue is amply demonstrable through multiple sources across the world, which credit the images (not the murder) with inspiring the outrage that helped cause a revolution. It is iconic within the context of the event, and it would be extremely easy to move this article to Photographs of Khaled Saeed and write primarily from the angle of the impact of these photographs, with the life and death of Khaled as background. I think it is also unnecessary. The policy says, "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." It doesn't say "as subjects of articles." :) In addition to those noted above, the iconic image captured of the Kent State shootings is displayed in an article on the event, not an article about the photograph. The File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg, one of a series of photographs also taken secretly and smuggled out for public display, is not displayed in an article about the photograph. That said, the article would benefit from the addition of more of these myriad sources discussing the iconic importance of the image. (And, while I think there is strong rationale for use of the article in Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, I don't think the same can be said for 2011 Egyptian revolution.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This image File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg is in the public domain in the country of origin. USchick (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's irrelevant if it's not being used on Wikipedia under claim that it is PD in the US, but under claim of fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Comment/Reply: As a regular participant with non-free content I can assure you what has been discussed many times is the context of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." in relation to the Foundations resolution on the matter and how Wikipedia applies it. It gets further broken down in the context of what is "iconic status or historical importance" and even more with "subjects of commentary." Obviously some here feel that this image carries an extremely "iconic status" and it of "historical importance." If so than there is zero reason that it can not be (or currently is) the subject of intensive critical commentary. We placed the commercial content restrictions on images for a reason, and their use in there own article needed to be clarified - however the concept, the wording, applies across the board and is in line with the Foundations resolution. Such use should be limited to a certain types of images - from a commercial source or not. Any, and all, truly iconic images would most likely also be historical - history comes after the fact most often. For example Kent State shootings is an article I have, myself, questioned the use of the A.P image in. However if one were to say "Kent State" (Even if you don't say "Kent State shootings") most people "over 30" (Being a play on the "Don't trust anyone over 30" phrase) would envision that image as it is the one most associated with the event. On the other hand Mary Ann Vecchio actually uses the image and presents it is a truly transformative way - giving the reader not only information on one of the subjects of the image but also on the image itself. This is akin to the Faris Odeh article as well, it gives information of the image itself - what happened before, what happened after - it becomes part of the story about how the image came to be. Same for Tank Man - many people saw the image, many people discussed the image, many people asked "Who is that?" - the article discusses that in relation to the image itself. It even presents other views of the same person. Take out the entire image and you have zero context of why the image, or the person seen in it, even matter.
Something may pop up and be iconic at a certain time and place, but may not mean anything "down the road". If a child makes a drawing it may be important to relatives, but maybe not anyone else. However if that child grows up to be the worst mass murderer is history that same drawing may take on another meaning all together ad may becomes a source for much in depth discussion. Issues such as that are issues that are taken into account with all non free content. There are thousands of image of historical events - but not every single one of them requires their own article, or, more importantly, requires being used in an article about that historic event. The same can be said of iconic people and historic people - just because material exists are were "required" to use all of it? No. So Wikipedia must look at the set goals of the Foundation and combine it with what what policies are set down. At this exact moment in time and space some here in this discussion feel this image is what caused the entire 2011 Egyptian revolution- if that feeling is true than clearly this image has (and will have) sourced commentary from reliable sources that state this - and thus can be made into an article about the image itself. The image itself will meet all the requirements to allow it to have it's own stand alone article. However, until that is done, this images needs to be looked at in the context of the articles it was used in. I see no solid evidence that this image was the sole cause of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. A passing mention of one person who was killed does not meet the requirement of "Sourced commentary"/"Critical commentary" needed for the image itself. I see it as part of the overall, ongoing, situation and clearly was used to add fuel to an already growing fire, but the overall content of the article does not meet the policy requirements for allowing use of this individual image over any other possible non-free image from the same event/s. And that leaves the one other article. Problem is this thread is no so much of a CF most of the on topic discussion/s might get lost. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
RS do explicitly say that this photograph catalyzed activists who went on to protest his death specifically and later the January demonstrations. The centerpoint of online activism was a website called We are all Khaled Said. It began as a place to express outrage and solidarity over that death, motivated by the image of it, and became the planning ground for the rest of the revolution. If people keep bringing this back to a hypothetical discussion about children's drawings or album cover art or David Hasslehoff or anything except this image which RS describe as being central to the revolution, the discussion won't make any sense. Your suggestion that we have a separate article for the image is not a bad one, but policy simply doesn't require that in order for the image to be "the subject of commentary"--unless you are literally reading "subject" as "title". The Death of Khalid Saeed article will be improved over time, but the image is appropriate for it already and will only become more so as the article fleshes out. Ocaasi (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply: It is not about if a stand alone article on a given topic is required at Wikipedia, it is about if a spin off article from a notable topic can exist and how far it is allowed to spin off. (For example "Khaled Mohamed Saeed" redirects to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed because the person is not notable bu their death is. "We are all Khaled Said" is a redirect to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed#Aftermath which, at the moment, indicates just a mispelling of "We are all Khaled Saeed" but could also be an indication the Facebook page itself is not (yet) notable on its own, but could be if the "Egypt's biggest dissident Facebook page" description is accurate. If the article did exists use of this image would most likely not be allowed, but it most likely would allow a screen capture of the main Facebook page that showed the image for example) Spin off articles are not the topic of discussion here but you can look at it like this: Notable subject - 2011 Egyptian revolution. It is the "large" parent article. That in itself has notable articles tied to it - they can also be thought of as spin off artifices because in some cases they are. Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed is one of them. That spin off article explain why the persons death relates to the parent article and it explains why there is a notability factor on its own. If we stop at that there needs to be a reason why any (emphasis here - any) non-free content that is to be added to that article meets the policy. You claim the image that is being discussed is so important for the article that without it not only does the article itself fail, but the entire reason the 2011 Egyptian revolution happened will not be understood. That is a massive claim and if true than by all means I 100% feel the image itself requires, even demands, it's own spin off article. However as that article does not exist I am solely looking at the current articles and suggesting that you most people can understand that this person died, and this persons death gave rise to protests without actually seeing the the image. There can be hundreds of articles that mention the death of this person, protesters protesting the death itself, protesters making home made flyers, websites, upset family members - it can go on and on. That all aids in establishing the article about the person,of in this case the persons death - but not about the image itself being used in the article. This is the section of the overall thread about if the image itself is discussed in a context that establish what you are saying. As for the comment about "the subject of commentary"--unless you are literally reading "subject" as "title" - that is exactly what is meant when it comes to cover art discussions - which is not relative here as this is not cover art. For most everything else it means about the non-free material itself. These are all issues that need to be taken into account, however they are normally not so broken down in discussions that are cut up and re-purposed as this thread has become. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Briefly, Arabic is notoriously difficult to transliterate, and Said, Saeed, Saeid are all acceptable. We are all Khaled Said is the actual name of the Facebook page; meanwhile, Death of Khaled Saeed uses the more common transliteration. I agree that this image might not be appropriate at 'We are all Khaled Said', if it had its own article. Or at '2011 Egyptian revolution', where it might be excessive. But it is not at those places, it is at 'Death of Khaled Saeed', where it makes sense, is directly related, and where its focus as the subject of commentary will only increase as the article expands based on all of the RS provided. If that expands to such a point that it need its own article, great, but that doesn't mean by policy it is insufficient to the the subject of commentary here. Again, please refer to examples you have provided earlier about Kent State and Tank Man, etc. Those articles are about the event, and have the image. Those images are not subjects of separate articles. Ocaasi (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In re: "However as that article does not exist I am solely looking at the current articles and suggesting that you most people can understand that this person died, and this persons death gave rise to protests without actually seeing the the image", this is an essential part of the argument. It is not merely asserted that "this persons death gave rise to protests" but specifically that images of this person dead gave rise to protests. It is that which makes these images iconic. The morgue images are mentioned in the sources as a specific catalyst; they were adopted by people as their Facebook profiles, used in banners and posters at the protests. More of this information is now sourced in the article, which may help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a few comments.
RE: Ocaasi - This space is for Non-Free content review and the content being discussed had been used in two articles. Neither article is currently using the image but both of those articles are being discussed.
RE: Moonriddengirl - We don't reprint the text of a novel in an article about a novel even though any "RS" article about the novel wouldn't exist without the novel itself. Rodney King was videotaped and it was that video that caused massive outcry and protests. This persons severe beating can be understood without seeing the entire video and the severity of his injuries can be understood without seeing the images of him afterward. This persons beating by the LAPD gave rise to many protests, and the resulting trial of the officers involved led to full scale riots across the country. The images of Rodney Kings beating and his injuries were adopted by people in the pre facebook/myspace/blog days and were made into posters, flyers and spread across the media. If I use the exact same argument/s given for this image for the King article than people can't possibly understand how a video caused so much outrage and led to an entire city coming under lock down unless I see the full video, not a single frame that shows no action, or any image that show the aftermath of the beating. For a film I can't possibly understand how that film is groundbreaking or iconic without seeing the full film. How about another notable because of death article? I can't possibly understand how, or why, Daniel Perls beheading mattered without actually seeing the video of him being beheaded. And what about Elvis? I can't possibly understand that an image of Elvis in his coffin was shocking or controversial without seeing it, or why the image became a papers biggest selling issue without out seeing that cover of that paper with that image on it. Simply can't be understood. Well - ok, I can understand it because text explains it.
Another non-free image that was deleted had a much smaller discussion - it was of a person who had died in a violent manner, but the image was not of their body in a morgue. In a deletion discussion the opinions of "keep" were because it was part of an article on a specific event that caused an outcry and met the NFCC. The NFCC "keep" opinions were dismissed because, much like Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia is also not a memorial. That is why the image was deleted - not because it actually met the NFCC, not because the persons death was important, not because the image had been used on flyers or in the media, not because the article "needed" the image - but because of "not." No matter what the outcome of this is, from all the discussions in various locations, cutting through the personal feelings, cutting through the "not censored" issues, cutting through the "too graphic" issues - I can really see it really boils down to a few facts: it is still very much a current event and the image is graphic. There are articles that exist on Wikipedia where an event and image from that event have been burned into peoples minds - images of victims used on posters, flyers, social networking sites, in the media. As the event grows somewhat distant the fight to include the most graphic images fall to the wayside. The "need" to see them, even if these images and these people are what caused a wider event to happen, also seems to not matter as much. If this image were not an illegally obtained, graphic, image of a dead body in a morgue and were simply this image the multitude of discussions in various locations would not be happening. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Your Rodney King example doesn't actually work because this screenshot is actually used in that article, which, according to you, would not be necessary because it is properly described by the text. Is a screenshot of a police officer beating King really necessary when it is discussed in the text of the article? The consensus for the article is yes, because the beating is a historic video that, while we cannot host the entire video for copyright concerns, we can host a screenshot that properly illustrates what happened and complements the descriptive text. We do this because it is a historic event and image (video in this case). SilverserenC 01:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No, what I actually said said was a person such as yourself could not possibly understand who Rodney King was, or why he was important, unless you saw the full video, not a single frame that shows no action, or any image that show the aftermath of the beating. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you summarize your argument above then? It's rather long and difficult to read in just a chunk of text. You seem to be saying that Rodney King's video is necessary for understanding who he is and why the video is important, but that this isn't true for Saeed? SilverserenC 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What Soundvisions1 seems to be saying is that arguing that the article on Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed needs a single image of "The Face That Launched a Revolution" (ala ABC) is akin to arguing that the article on Rodney King needs the entire video, rather than the single still it already has.

I understand it is an unpleasant picture, and I am convinced that that is the reason it has caused such uproar. Not in you, of course, but in general. You know as well as I do that some of the arguments put forward in this discussion regarding the use of this image betray a lack of understanding of U.S. copyright laws and, indeed, the entire purpose and function of fair use.

I've already pointed out in this thread the also supposedly illegal images smuggled out of the Holocaust. Wikipedia is full of images of atrocity. Why, from one article alone, we have a decapitated severed head with a cigarette shoved in its mouth, a dead woman with a stake impaling her vagina, a man carrying a dead child like a broken doll, and more. These images are PD, but there is nothing that I know of in our non-free content policies that impose any extra limitation against "upsetting" non-free images. (And, if there are, the screaming, naked little girl in Phan Thị Kim Phúc has surely got to go as well.)

Your argument about using the entire novel, if adopted, could be used to eliminate every non-free image on Wikipedia; it is a standard that I believe is out of keeping with the community's. There is no such thing as an image that cannot be described. I understand your concerns about recentism, but this particular image (according to international sources) was one of the catalysts of the overthrow of a two decade political regime. We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias; this is a major event in Egypt, and it is not up to us to decide that these news sources are wrong about the impact of this image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On the first section - yes, that is what I am saying. That also ties into the last section. When that beating happened it was "recentism" and multiple outlets discussed the King beating, it was all over and had Wikipedia existed at that time I have no doubt there would have been multitudes crying out for the entire video, the booking images, the family images - every image that showed, in graphic detail, what the LAPD beating caused. When the trial happened and the "no guilty" verdict came down it was due to the existence of that video and had it not been for that video riots nationwide would not have broken out. But I can 100% understand what the video showed from reading the description of it in the article. I can comprehend that that video put Rodney King on the national (and international) stage. I can 100% understand why that beating caused such an outcry. Does that one frame from the video educate me more? Not at all - it is not even close to being as informative as the text is. If that frame came up for a review I would say it is not needed because the text alone does far more to illustrate that event than that single frame does.
I don't really care if the image being discussion is graphic or not. At least for me the entire discussion about it being so it irrelevant for this discussion. As I have said several times the question that *would* relate is if the image was only being used in an exploitative manner and it is my opinion that the original uploader who placed it into the articles we are discussing was not doing it to "bring attention" to the article. However that is just my opinion, others may feel different - and others who voiced that they do feel the image is exploitative have not (yet) repeated those comments here. (I feel if they did they would be met with the "not censored" argument anyway).
My point in mentioning all these other articles where somehting graphic happened is twofold - one to establish that the most graphic image/s are not needed in order to understand the text that describes it. The other is that there are equally valid arguments to be made for inclusion of these graphic images but once outside of the event itself "history" steps in and takes a look. Individual frames of the Zapruader film have become iconic and discussed over and over again - analyzed, reported on, used in documentaries - in the context of history, far more than the image being discussed has been. Yet we do not see the entire film (Iconic in its own right), nor do we see the most explicit frame of that film even though that frame ("back and to the right") itself has been the subject of multiple discussions. Same with the Daniel Perl video and the Saddam Hussen video and images.
And I already mentioned Phan Thị Kim Phúc as well in the same context - except that article discusses the image itself. As with the numerous other articles I also mentioned. Again - not about being graphic, but about meeting the requirements of policy.
An image showing a decapitated head with a cigarette shoved in its mouth could not be used in the Smoking, Tobacco or Cigarette article, even if the image is free, because it would fail the image use policy. But than again so would use of File:Smoking Box Again.jpg - but for a slightly different reason. Again - the graphic element comes into play only as it relates to the overall Image use policy. Beyond that, if the image is also non-free, it falls into the NFCC - graphic or not. Do I feel the frame grab in the Rodney King article is "needed"? No - because it really does not aid the reader in understanding what is so well described in the text. Do I feel the frame gab in the Daniel Perl article is "needed"? No, because it simply shows him with some Arabic text. We don't need to see that frame to understand he was kidnapped, or beheaded. Do I feel the "need" to "require" images of video of Saddam Hussein hanging be included in that article? No because the text vividly describes the moment of death. Certainly R. Budd Dwyer and Christine Chubbuck's live on camera suicides were historic and caused much discussion but there is not a "need" to see it because people get what happened from text alone. They can understand why those telecasts resulted in much discussion. Do I feel the image of The Falling Man needs to be included in that article? Yes because the article discusses the image itself and the person in that image - without the image there is no article. Do I feel that File:Chinese head, Nanking massacre.JPG is really needed in the Nanking Massacre? In the wider context of the article, no. It is just a decoration to me without any real context. I feel the same about File:Boy killed in Nanking massacre.jpg. It doesn't really add to the overall context of the article any more than having several other images like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-U1002-502, Japanisch-Chinesischer Krieg.jpg would. However along with the "rape" section I can better understand The slaughter of civilians is appalling. I could go on for pages telling of cases of rape and brutality almost beyond belief by seeing File:Nanjing Massacre rape killed.jpg. On the the other hand I would *not* need to see an image in order to understand They bayoneted one little boy of eight who have [sic] five bayonet wounds including one that penetrated his stomach, a portion of omentum was outside the abdomen. I think he will live. As I have tried to explain it is a thin line with any content.
For me this is not an "unpleasant picture", I have seen far worse images, far more "shocking" images. I also get that because it is a dead body of a person who was beaten by police it is more likely to cause an uprising - the same way the video of Rodney King did. The same way Daniel Perls beheading did. And in that vein I agree with you that there is no such thing as an image that cannot be described. However a wider stance is that, with non-free content, use of such images, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events as well as to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. At the moment I see the riots as an event and certainly would have zero objections to see an image that showed a wider view of protesters who were using this image in their protests - it would also make a lot more sense to illustrate the image itself as a means of protests vs only the image itself. While you see nothing explicit that requires an article be about the image itself I see "articles about copyrighted contemporary works" as meaning, in relation to certain images, articles about the image itself. As with The Falling Man or Tank man would those articles exist without the image? No. Would the article about the 2011 Egyptian revolution exist without pictures? Yes. Would the article about the Death of Saddam Hussein exist without pictures of his death, or his body after death? Yes. Would the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed article exist without the image in question? Yes. What I have suggested over and over is that would an article about "Photos of Said's battered and deformed face" exist without the photo itself (if it were considered among "articles about copyrighted contemporary works") ? No.
And yes I do fully get that arguments put forward in this discussion regarding the use of this image betray a lack of understanding of U.S. copyright laws and, indeed, the entire purpose and function of fair use. And my very first post was meant to address some of those. However now some of that has been re-purposed into other sub discussions as if I had been replying to those other sub discussions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

Do we need permission from the family?

If publishing this photo would be illegal under Egyptian law, can we still use it?

  • This is my biggest concern; if the photo was illegally obtained, then all chain of publication from the family to blogs to WP would be illegal (you'd not be able to own the copyright on something that was illegally obtained). If that bound can be cleared, then I'm not seeing as significant an issue with the image use save that I do think it's unnecessary, but consensus points differently. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Foreign laws are not legally binding on the foundation, and our position with regards to copyright is designed to protect readers and ourselves from liability. We also don't want to support bribery and theft. However, context matters, and stealing from a dictator to expose human rights abuses is moral, does not pose a threat us legally, and does not pose a threat to the reader, since Mubarak's gone. Regardless, some editorial decisions are important for human reasons, and if necessary, we should WP:IAR in light of the situation and its significance. Ocaasi (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The other thing is, it would be illegal and chargeable, perhaps, but by a government that doesn't exist anymore. Thus, we are saying that it is illegal from the standpoint of a non-entity, under laws that cannot be enforced because of the current non-existence of that entity. While taking the photo may have been illegal under Mubarak's dictatorship, his government no longer exist and, thus, cannot sue or charge Wikipedia with anything. You can't really expect us to find proof of legality from a group that no longer exists. SilverserenC 05:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course as I read your comments the first thing that came to mind is holocaust victims restitution and the organizations such as The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. But aside from that - copyright is copyright as is how the image was obtained in the first place. So far those who discuss it, even Ocassi, say the image was most likely obtained illegally. Seriously - stealing from a dictator to expose human rights abuses "is" moral is not really a valid argument for Wikipedia - but feel free to start a discussion on the policy page and RFC it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There's international recognition that the morgue and medical examiner, the police, and the ministry of information were concealing fatal police brutality. Mubarak's regime doesn't exist any more, at least in part because this photo was taken. These kinds of issues are point-blank why civil disobedience, common sense, and IAR exist. Aside from that, the family had every right to see and photograph their own relative, as a matter of U.S. Law or of International Property rights, or of Universal Human Rights... since they control 'the estate' to which his image is a part. This kind of fealty to the letter of the law is why the spirit of the law was invented, and occasionally weeps. I would still love to bring this up for debate once we have covered the other issues. (An unjust law is no law at all. I think that was, yes, MLK. Wise man. Too bad he wouldn't be welcome at our deletion discussions). Copyright is copyright... I don't know what to say. Feel free to apply policies in their real world context, in light of the real world liability risks they pose, and in light of our discretion to not be bound by a foreign nation's attempts to deceive and slaughter its citizens. This would be funny if I was being hyperbolic, but since copyright is copyright is the last word, I guess we'll have to wait until another despot decides to join up with the EFF so then at least the concealed crimes they perpetrate under Emergency Law will be eligible for non-free content. Are we really discussing this? Ocaasi (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We also have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or was not legal for photographs to be taken in that morgue. Any conclusion we come to is mere speculation in that regard. SilverserenC 07:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's not slip into hyperbole. :) There's enough unnecessary drama in this conversation as it is. I'm inclined to agree with User:Silver seren in that we don't know that there is any law in Egypt or ever has been forbidding a family from photographing their deceased in a morgue. That the family took the photographs secretly is understandable, given that their loved one had just been allegedly illegally beaten to death by the authorities who were very likely standing right beside them. I'm all about remaining compliant with copyright, but I don't think we should be rejecting an image on the basis that it might have been obtained illegally, without any evidence that it was. Even if it had been obtained illegally, I rather suspect that our use of the image would be "fair" given its wide replication and demonstrably iconic status. It has been credited (internationally, by multiple sources) with helping to launch a revolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In general, our NFC approach is "you have to prove something meets your claims or otherwise we assume the worst". eg: we default that any image out there is non-free unless you can prove its PD-ness.
In this specific (highly specific case), something had to be done that was otherwise "against the rules". If these were arbitrary rules for this specific victim as to hide the brutality, that's one thing, but if the morgue had a standard that "no photos, period, even if you're a family member", that's where there's a legality issue. The problem is that I don't think we'll ever prove that is the case. I'd personally take the side that we'd normally assume it was illegal and can't use it but I understand the weight of the allowances here and other argues for the significance of the image, that likely its use at this time is not going to be an issue for WP. The rest of the issue falls on where consensus sees NFCC#8 being met.
I do want to make sure it is clear that if the photo was illegally obtained with the default copyright falling back to the dictatorship state, the fall of the dictatorship does not mean the IP suddenly evaporates: the new Egyptian govt now owns the copyright. (I've mentioned the mess that Russian PD law is in due to the revolution there...) --MASEM (t) 12:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with a law that grants copyright on default to somebody else if pictures are taken illegally. I do know that there have been cases where rights of the copyright holder were abrogated by illegal origin, but I haven't seen the rights assigned to somebody else. But your mention of the significance is certainly worth noting. For example, File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg and others in the series were taken illegally and smuggled out of Auschwitz. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's no obvious point for case law that we can fall back to. Searching around, taking the case of where a robber who stole a digital camera and published the pictures on it himself before the owner could do so, the robber is not going to be the lawful copyright owner. (This is why we caution about using any old image from any old website - if you can't follow the chain of ownership of an image from the actual creator to the web site use, you may be using a image that is copyrighted to someone else that was never meant for distribution by the copyright owner) I would say that if the image is going to be used, editors must be prepared that, say, if the Egyptian gov't nullifies the family's copyright on the photo in a legal manner, we need to remove that image (unless, of course, the Egyptian govt' republishes it themselves). But that's a hypothetical. I still personally have reservations of the image actually being needed (it can be freely replaced by text in my opinion) but consensus is trending to its use otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
the case of where a robber who stole a digital camera and published the pictures on it himself before the owner could do so - this is a red herring. The thief didn't take those pictures, and never had any copyright claim on them. If the thief had taken the pictures himself using a stolen camera, he would still own the copyright on those pictures. Thparkth (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I recognize that it is not the same case, but it is the closest thing I can think to find in established case law. The other case I've proposed is effectively the Sony PlayStation 3 hacking case, where the information to hack the PS3 console is a trade secret, but exposed by a third-party (who is now being prosecuted for that). The information about the hack distributed by the third party clearly is not copywritten to him (working on the present assumption what he did violated EULA and law). One could argue that the image of the corpse was a "trade secret" to the morgue and thus taking its photo was illegal, but we have no idea how this applies to Egyptian law or the like. My only point here is that it is possible that for some images, if they have been obtained unlawfully, likely have a copyright owner other than those that actually published the image, and we should not be reusing them. The image here in question is so murky and yet consensus seems to think it critical to have as to overlook the problems though keep them in the back of the head in case that rears up. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason we broke out different sections is to stay on topic and qualify each topic without going around in circles. The question was: USchick (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section header, this section is already too full of headers. But the simple answer is that if we know the photo was obtained illegally, then no we cannot use it. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are we covering the same basic principles over and over again? It is not automatically or even generally true that if a photo was obtained illegally, then we cannot use it. As has been mentioned, see File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That file doesn't apply to this case, as for that file it is now PD, so how it was obtained no longer matters. Here's a photo that by most counts across the world would be still under somebody's copyright. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not claimed under PD in the U.S.; it's claimed under fair use. In fact, it was previously challenged under NFC, but evidently kept because text alone was not believe sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Masem, If we're going to bring an RfC on this issue, I'd like to do it now, before this goes on. Can we shift our attention to NFCC#8 so we can see if that is going to be necessary? Ocaasi (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All I am trying to say here is this: in general, if an image is obtained and published illegally by the non-copyright holder (to the point where there is legal action to affirm this), we should not be using that image. In this very specific case, there is a huge question mark on the legal issue, and barring any other objections to the use of the photo, I would agree we would allow this picture. But as soon as any possible legal ramifications on the original picture taker or publishers comes around, it has to be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the phenomenal unlikeness of that happening means we can wait for the foundation to give us guidance on that. If the Egyptian government decides to try and put Saeed's photo back into a box, it will be reflective of a far bigger problem, it is an impossibly small liability risk to us anyway, and it is only even a theoretical threat to Egyptian readers who, again, overthrew their government because of this photo. I appreciate you putting the image in context, but I can't say I concede the point that the Egyptian government could ever have a legitimate copyright claim on this image, let alone one which would outweigh Fair Use. Whether Wikipedia used NFCC to comply with the demands of a new dictatorship would again be grounds for an RfC. Others might feel differently. We can deal with that if it comes up. Ocaasi (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Prior publication; sourced commentary

First of all, Soundvisions, I agree completely with your characterization of this discussion. It's hard to fathom that it could have been intentionally made less readable. In fact, I can't even find your latest note to reply to. So I am making my points here.

There is and can be no free equivalent for the autopsy photos of Saaed unless Saaed's family chooses to release the images. Any image showing the photographs in use in a demonstration would have to be derivative works for the photograph to be sufficiently clear to meet the encyclopedic purpose. Policy says, with respect to previous publication, "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." This content has clearly been both published and publicly displayed; it was published in the web portal from which it was taken as well as the Facebook hosted by the copyright owner. Legally, the Facebook probably even constitutes public display, defined by U.S. copyright law as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." (emphasis added) Facebook can be made private only; this was not. It is open to the public and was obviously intended for public display.

Contextual significance is always going to be subjective. I believe, as I have said, that contextual significance for this image (which I had never seen before this nasty mess of an NFCR was opened) is amply attested to by the sources discussed here. I think some of the sources used here do need to be included in the article and that reference to the impact of the photograph should be more fully explored. So convinced am I of the iconic importance of this that I'll take care of that myself, if nobody else does. :) I do not believe it needs to be in an article titled Morgue images of Khalid Saaed to meet "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Nowhere does it say that the article must be about the image for us to include it, and there are many historical images used in articles that are not dedicated to the images. A glance at what is transcluded to Template:Non-free historic image suggests that the vast majority of such images are used in articles about the subjects, not about the photographs. While WP:OTHERSTUFF is valid for consideration here, I think promoting a view that is not explicitly inscribed in the guideline really does require some showing that this is standard.

FWIW, I appreciate your reasoned contribution to this thread. I have a feeling that most people actually interested in discussing the matter will find it difficult, given the signal to noise ratio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just spent time above - so I am not going to repeat it, nor will I cut and (re)paste it here. But two quick things - Not directed at this specific image, but overall - I cannot upload an image here and place restriction such as "non commercial use" or "no derivative" or the like. If I do, it would be deleted. The idea with Non-free content is that it must have been published outside of Wikipedia - "published" meant to mean actually "in print" so to speak. That could mean in a film, it could mean on TV, it could mean in a book, it could mean in a newspaper. What is was not meant to mean was a means to bypass licensing restitution on Wikipedia. An editor can't post an image on Facebook and than upload it here saying it was previously published therefore no one can use it for commercial reasons. US Copyright law guides the policy - but it is not the policy. The second is about sourced commentary and can text convey the same thing as non-free material. I already went into more detail but the shorter version is that we don't use the full text of a novel in an article simply because there are sources that describe the book as important, iconic, changing a generation, began a movement, etc. Same for a film, a song, a newspaper. As I said - I deal with non-free content, images, a lot. It is hard to balance between real world and wiki-world in terms of what is acceptable in Wiki-world (Not the real world). However deletion discussion after deletion discussion, criteria discussion after discussion - they all come back to (mainly) a few things - needed critical commentary about the material itself. Text that says someone stood up does not need non-free material to show someone standing up. Text that says someone was decapitated does not need non-free material to show someone was decapitated. Text that says a person died at an event does not need an image to show a person died to understand the person died. As for promoting a view that is not 'explicitly' inscribed in the guideline really does require some showing that this is standard. - if you mean the fact that critical commentary is required - that is explicitly laid out, over and over and over again. If you mean the need for text to discuss the non-free content itself, vs something else - that too is explicitly laid out. Template:Non-free historic image is often misused - the amount of times I have come across an image using that tag that is not of a truly historic image might surprise you. As I keep saying "historic" is discussed often but the truth is that, in the case of a photograph, time will often shed light on if an image is "historic" or not. Some night argue that every single image ever taken during WWII is an "historic" image. Certainly that was a historic event - but not every image is iconic, and not every single image is looked at in what is meant by the template - which is meant to reflect the Foundations resolution allowing us to have an EDP. The narrow scope is meant for images for specific, significant, historic and/or iconic events - Jimbo even said at one time it was like the Elian Gonzales image. That images was used over and over again - the subject of discussion in relation to many many things from government abuse of power, to gun control to terror of a little boy. And as with some of the other examples I have repeatably) provided this is an image where it is discussed in terms of the subjects full story and the event the photo resulted (came) from. Again - WWII was an historic event, but would it be within the set goals of Wikipedia and the Foundation resolution to allow every single non-free image taken during WWII to be used under the argument that was an historic event? And every image taken during it is historic? No. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Further fracturing of the conversation. :) When the discussion didn't move down here, I found it above. The language of the policy says "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." In this case, it was publicly displayed by the legal rightsholders, so your valid concern about some kind of Facebook misuse to bypass the legal requirement is not applicable.
I'm sorry if my note was unclear: my reference to promoting a view that is not 'explicitly' inscribed in the guideline really does require some showing that this is standard has to do with requiring that the article be about the photograph specifically. Most of them are not.
I've responded to your "full text of a novel" argument above, at #Is the image the subject of commentary?, but, in short, that argument can be used to exclude any non-free image on Wikipedia.
Finally, again, we are at cross purposes here. You've given examples to support your perspective; I've given examples to support mine. But this image is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article...more now, since I wrote the above several days ago. According to one source, it is "The Face That Launched a Revolution".[18]
I really came here, though, only to point out that Jimbo offers a good suggestion (imo) for dealing with disturbing images in articles at his talk page. And, no, it's not yet another forum discussing this image. :) I just happened to notice it and thought about its applications here. See also another thread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Now to bounce down here for a moment - I did say not specific to this image but overall. :)
It is interesting that the link you provided discussed the event/s and may be called "the face that launched a revolution" but but does not use the actual image being discussed here. It also mentions Videos of Said and other victims of brutality... as well as the video that was posted prior to his death showing police corruption. I would presume these other images and videos are not as graphic as this one is thus no real "need" to use them?
The clown image is actually kind of funny - reminds me of Killer Klowns from Outer Space (Which now that I look is using, IMO, too many non free frame grabs in it) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

This is an opportunity to garner a clear consensus concerning the image and policies applied to it based on all of the above discussion. The argument seems to be going round and round and it is time to gain a clear consensus.

No compelling argument been made to disqualify Fair Use from being applied to this image. Nor has the image been shown to be in violation of any Wikipedia policies or applicable laws which would prevent its usage.

  • Agree — although there has been a great deal of discussion, a convincing case has not been made which would disqualify the current rationale nor disqualify its usage in the article.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, but this statement is not necessarily sufficient. We need to agree that there is a compelling argument to use the image, not merely that there is no good reason not to. In my opinion there is indeed a compelling argument to use it - it is a textbook case of an historically-important, significant-in-its-own right image and it is entirely within the WP:NFCC rules. In fact, it could be used as an example to illustrate WP:NFCC#8. Thparkth (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, I think the sources alone make the compelling argument for us. SilverserenC 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, is anyone actually reading policy? Based on this policy alone, it does not qualify. Image copyright tag policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Enforcement: To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. USchick (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, more than enough compelling statements to show why NFCC is all satisfied. I still question the legality of the original image but that's really unlikely to be a problem any more as to put WP under any more legal duress compared to any major journalism site. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, I'm not sure how the discussion got this far. Smallbones (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was that the use of this image in Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed satisfies the non-free content requirements. Please remember that consensus is not unanimity. It has been suggested that this image would only be appropriate in an article which focuses on the image itself as opposed to the event, but given that there are multiple sources which attest directly or indirectly that his (movement's) notability rests on the photograph this seems to be addressed by the direct discussion of the photograph in the present article. Note that this closure is based only on an evaluation of WP:NFCC. Independent of this judgement, as the image was most recently removed from the article pending outcome of this discussion and consensus for inclusion ignoring non-free content guidelines was relatively recently addressed at FfD/DRV and Talk:Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed/Photograph of corpse, I am replacing it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_9&oldid=1146276103"