The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fails WP:NFCC#4. There is already a version of this image on Commons where the copyright holder is calling for its deletion from Wikipedia. Egghead06 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As nobody can go back and take a photo of the statue being thrown into Bristol Harbour, the image is important for the reader to understand the topic, particularly in years to come. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that copyright law was not written by people who believed time travel is possible, it was written by people who understand that if no valid fair use claim exists, and no other copyrighted image can be legally obtained by a publisher looking for an image of a one time event, then legally speaking, that publisher is shit out of luck. The validity of the valid fair use claim stands or falls on your ability to expand upon "the image is important for the reader to understand the topic, particularly in years to come" in a way that recognises what the law actually says. The image is helpful in one regard - it shows lots of people were in attendance, and lots of them had cameras, therefore the barrier to obtaining an image legally, if no fair use case exists, is not likely to be that an image does not exist, and that if this particular image is important to the point a fair use claim exists, it should be possible to explain how with reference to it as a specific image, one of potentially hundreds showing the same topic.
Delete per WP:GETTY. We should run an exhaustive search online for free versions and if that fails, use a photo taken by a bystander as opposed to a commercial agency. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until better alternative found. Egghead's deletion argument is flawed - saying the copyright holder has challenged someone else claiming this as their own work on Commons is not a reason to delete from Wikipedia when it has valid free use rationale. And it does - it's important to the topic. I searched a lot to find free images, and couldn't (maybe in a few more days there will be a free alternative), and all the non-professional 'photos' were generally stills from handheld videos that were basically illegible, or taken from somewhere in the crowd without much view at all. There's no better alternative at the moment, and the article is getting lots of coverage for this specific event at the moment, so it would be unwise to remove and wait. Kingsif (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one works fine. We can contact him to see if he's willing to relicense under a commercial CC license, but if not we can still use it under fair use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best quality image I was able to find as well that wasn't a press photo. Given the recency of the event, it's not at all clear that WP:NFCC#1 is met, but at the very least, there are photos from individuals that would not run afoul of WP:NFCC#2 as this one does. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had to zoom right in to make sense of that though - it's super wide, all black and white, and the statue is mostly submerged. A fairly nice image, but could just be of a wall unless you're looking for the statue. If you can get it free, fair enough, but the fact it's still not illustrative enough to justify non-free use is an issue, too. Kingsif (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright lawyer could probably use a statement like "There's no better alternative at the moment, and the article is getting lots of coverage for this specific event at the moment, so it would be unwise to remove and wait." as evidence that Wikipedia's intent was indeed to deny the photographer their full commercial rights as vested in their automatic copyright, acknowledging as it seems to do that for this image, they are likely to reduce markedly as time passes, rather than fair use of their work. If you're claiming a valid fair use case exists here, then it would be valid forever, from the moment Wikipedia first published this image without an explicit release, and for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypto Wallace (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krypto Wallace: ignoring your spiel, you seem to have made an account for the sole purpose of nagging at this discussion. I think it would be valuable to the discussion for you to explain why. This isn't a part of Wikipedia people just stumble upon, and while I'm trying to assume you have good intentions, the extent of your responses suggests a vested interest in the matter. Kingsif (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be convinced of your good intent had this reply contained anything more than just a thinly veiled accusation. My "spiel" was an invitation to you to explain you understand fair use doctrine; your non-response, combined with your eagerness to retain the image only while there is interest in it, suggests an intent to willingly violating copyright. You hostile tone doesn't warrant a reply, but on the off-chance there is anybody else here who is wondering, I am a professional photographer who was surprised to see Wikipedia had obtained such a good free image of this one event so quickly. Investigation led me here, and the realisation that the image was only obtained by stealing someone else's work and trying to pass it off as fair use. Unless or until you or Ritchie can demonstrate you know the law, I am going to remove it from the article, since it appears this process isn't geared for quickly resolving time sensitive copyright issues. Krypto Wallace (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krypto Wallace: I have read WP:NFCC extensively, which is Wikipedia's policy on fair use. You accuse me of stealing, which I have no intent to do. If you properly read my comments, you would see that: I explained that the image is useful in the article, and calls for it to be removed until a free one is found seem pointless as it is more useful now than it will be at the end of the news cycle. Do not mischaracterize that as criminal intent of eagerness to retain the image only while there is interest in it. Now, though, I read more discussion - I had uploaded the photo as a non-free photo of something being discussed (i.e. not under the option saying the photo itself is object of discussion), which did not give the option to fill in NFCC point 2 about commercial opportunities (it automatically inserted n/a). As the news cycle is still running, there's obviously significant commercial opportunity. I cannot believe you say I have a hostile tone while you're literally calling other editors thieves with criminal intentions; I was genuinely trying to WP:Assume good faith, sorry if that didn't show. (that bit, that was sarcastic) Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:. I call it theft, because that is what it is. Ignorance of the law is no defence. What do you think "respect for commercial opportunities" actually means in this context? This image is most valuable commercially while the news cycle surrounding this event is still running (and during follow up news reports, of which it seems there will be quite a few), which is the very time you are (still) arguing that Wikipedia has a valid claim to use it without a valid license. It does not. You should be very careful here, as I suspect, in your ignorance of even the basics of copyright law, you are probably not aware that it is not Wikipedia that is going to be legally liable for damages arising from this theft, unless/until they are in receipt of a takedown notice, and only then if they refuse to comply. As the self-admitted uploader of the image, it is you personally who the photographer/agency can sue for damages, if/when they notice the reason the image might not have made as much money for them as it could have, was because it was published here without a valid claim of fair use. Reducing its size doesn't mitigate the offence here, since it is still quite easy to make out what it shows, and you are on record above as being unwilling to even ask photographers if they would release an image for your (clearly only illustrative) purposes while you are in possession of this stolen image. As the Wikipedia rules on NFCC make clear outside of the Part 2 criteria, they exist not only to protect Wikipedia and its editors from being sued for copyright infringement, they exist to actually encourage people to produce (or try to obtain through legitimate means) photographs that are properly licensed for Wikipedia. Your ignorance of both the law and the local rules, seem to be about deliberate defiance of that principle, made all the more obvious by your repeated statements to the effect that your desire to keep this image here on fair use grounds alone, will apparently wane once the news cycle has moved on. I will repeat (and you should really answer the point this time), legally speaking, for an encyclopedia's purposes, a valid fair use claim for any image, if it is to exist, will exist for all time. So, if you're still unconvinced that your attempted claim of fair use is theft, will you at least withdraw these potentially incriminating statements to the effect that your interest in the image is only temporary? I ask only out of concern for your own financial well-being, since it seems obvious the image is going to be deleted in due course in three days, precisely because it is obvious no valid fair use claim exists, and likely never will unless/until the precise image (content and composition) rather than the event it illustrates, becomes of historical note. Waiting seven days is obviously not fast enough to fully show respect for commercial opportunities, but it is at least the right outcome in perpetuity. @Ritchie333: certainly doesn't seem to be willing to return to argue the claim is valid from a "years to come" standpoint, he seems to have accepted that the image is only going to be illegally hosted for another three days. And who knows, maybe he still thinks that this is justified as a slap in the face to us racists who clearly do know the law, but he isn't the person who has exposed themselves to sole legal liability as an individual (Wikipedia defends any such claims as a corporation) by uploading the image and making an invalid fair use claim. Krypto Wallace (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krypto Wallace: 1. I didn't manage to read quite all that, but I got to you are on record above as being unwilling to even ask photographers, something I never said. 2. Did you not read the end of my comment above? The "But now I see" part about commercial opportunities. I probably could have more explicitly added 'so it's probably not under fair use right now and should go', but I thought that was obvious from the concessionary tone. 3. You are hostile with all your implicit threats of legal action, something not tolerated on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:No legal threats), so I recommend you stop or take on the collaborative (not preachy) attitude of everyone else here. Kingsif (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up that I hope is helpful: Krypto, you don't seem to understand that there are multiple of these discussions every day. You can't take your "listen to me! about laws! you're all criminals!" attitude to all of those, nobody can, and so the Wikipedia community has decided to make the NFCC policy publicly accessible and to discuss calmly and briefly, as demonstrated below. Editors are allowed to argue why they think a file meets or does not meet NFCC criteria, and walls of text with legal threats asserting that your stance is correct (whether it is or isn't) is considered disruptive to this process. I expect you will want to take part in more of these discussions, and encourage you to (more well-intentioned editors are welcome!), with advice being to at least consider toning it down. Kingsif (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't get to blame me for your shortcomings. There is no excuse for your failure to heed my clearly stated concerns, which you arrogantly dismissed as a "spiel". Had you not done so, it is clear you would have reached the conclusion that you were wrong not only faster, but without me needing to apparently upset you with a simple description of the reality of your situation. You can be sued, ignorance is no defence, and evidence of willful ignorance or even obstruction, can be used against you. I have issued no legal threats, nor used a hostile tone, I have merely been frank, after an attempt to calmly and succinctly explain where you had misunderstood the law, fell on apparently deaf ears. There is no defence in the law that says you can delay or even obstruct the legitimate rights of copyright holders, simply because Wikipedia apparently allows such matters to be discussed for seven days. I suspect it does not, I suspect the Wikipedia (corporate and volunteer community) position is that such obvious examples of theft are meant to be deleted well before a legal claim can be made that it/they purposely delayed proceedings in order to illegally extract the newsworthy value of an image under an invalid fair use claim. That appears to be the intent of "speedy delete" opinions, in particular, Part F7b, a position advanced here for two days now, with no reply from either you or Ritchie333. It explains a lot about the way you perhaps view this process that I suspect it was your fear/suspicion that it might have been my photograph that you had stolen, that led you to ignore the sound legal advice I was offering, as well as ignoring other people who had said as much, only even more briefly. If it proves to be this hard to get obvious copyright violators to admit "it's probably not under fair use right now and should go", and the people who do know the law have to be subjected to thinly veiled accusations and even cast as racists just to even get to that point, then I doubt anyone who actually understands the law is going to be willing to participate at all, and will be happy for people like you and the Wikipedia corporation, to get sued into oblivion. That is not a threat, just an observation. Krypto Wallace (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's evident that my only shortcoming in this situation was responding to you in the first place. You'll be glad to know that the image is no longer being used in the article, which means it will be automatically deleted in seven days. Notice that? Even when there cannot be fair use rationale, Wikipedia still keeps hold of an image for a week. Take your issues up with the organization, not me, here following the WP guidelines. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: It's no longer there, because I removed it. I am glad, because it should have never been there to begin with. I doubt there is any Wikipedia guideline that supports you believing this makes what you did legal, the fact the image is still hosted here appears to simply be because nobody with the ability to delete it is paying attention, and they know it's only you who is actually legally liable, should the copyright holder seek damages. They might even use the fact that even now, even after you apparently accept it has no valid fair use, you still seem happy to have got it hosted here for seven days. The organisation only becomes liable as and when someone tells them about this specific image in the form of an actual take down request and they refuse to comply with it, as I have told you once already. I am confident that there probably is a mechanism to get it deleted faster without involving the organisation, otherwise why is there a "speedy deletion" mechanism for exactly this purpose (Part 7b), but removing it from the article seems to do the job just as well, given you only really stole it to use it in the article, as you said. Krypto Wallace (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - the photo credit clearly indicates the image is from PA Wire, a commercial news photo agency which makes its money from licensing such images. The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. The use of this image is in contravention of WP:NFCC#2. In fact, we have a speedy deletion category for this. See WP:F7 point b. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary" - It was the major news headline on all UK media outlets yesterday. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The event that the image depicts is the subject of the commentary. The image itself is the not the subject of commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s a picture of the Colston statue. The srticle is about the statue. You have to explain yourself more clearly, or otherwise newcomers and non-regulars might think "why is he trying to whitewash history?" Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 07:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a newcomer myself, I do not appreciate the insinuation that protecting Wikipedia from valid claims of copyright infringement, potentially hugely costly violations when it concerns highly trafficked imagery of newsworthy commercial value, is tantamount to the racist terminology you just used. Ignorance of the law is no defence. If you do not understand the difference between illustration and commentary for the purposes of fair use doctrine, kindly educate yourself, certainly before you dare to accuse others who apparently are knowledgeable of the law, of racist agendas. If this Wikipedia article is not purporting to be news reporting of the protest, and no other plausible argument is being made in terms of academic use of the image (mere illustration of a textual depiction of an event not yet proven to be of lasting historical importance, is not educational use), then you have no leg to stand on, as far as the law stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypto Wallace (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Perhaps an example would make it clearer. See File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. This non-free image was a National Geographic cover. It is used in the article Afghan Girl because the photograph itself is the subject of the article. Another example would be File:TrangBang.jpg with is an Associated Press photo. This photo is used on a couple of articles and it is the photo itself which is the subject of commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Whpq—fails WP:NFCC#2, the image itself is not the subject of commentary. buidhe 22:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair use doctrine requires the image to be more than merely illustrative for its use without the copyright holder's permission to be legal. The person who took it (or their employer) is entitled to the full commercial benefit of their work, particularly in terms of its value to news organisations, so if no explicit release for use in Wikipedia exists, the law protects them from the very moment they first published it. If "speedy delete" recognises that in some jurisdictions the monetary damages for copyright infringement of newsworthy imagery are calculated by taking account not just the length if time but also the number of discrete views of the infringement from the moment it was first published elsewhere with a valid copyright notice, then yes, a quick deletion is advisable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypto Wallace (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
