This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free contentornon-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "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." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
Ifyou are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2024 July 15}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2024 July 15}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Agree with above. Using only the top image is misrepresenting the article topic. Just do something with them side by side like the two examples above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this painting is the subject of its own page where the image is irreplaceable and illustrative (too many artwork nominations at once of major artists such as Matisse and Derain, please limit your noms, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule, and I believe the nominator is correct to question these images. There are definitely instances where a work this old can still be copyrighted in the United States. It's not super common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the Hirtle chart, I believe this work and the other Matisse paintings Lithoderm nominated would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978"). I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. They can always be re-uploaded as non-free fair use images if need be. - 19h00s (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1910 by a German collector and then on public display for three decades, is what the SLAM page says. Felix QW (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic design would most likely not meet the minimum requirements for copyright protection and would therefore likely be free in the United States. Maybe you need to consider the minimum copyright protection in its country of origin. If it is in the UK or Australia, you need to use the target {{PD-USOnly}} and do not move it to Wikicommons. If the country of origin is Canada, use the template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of the original fair use label and move it to Wikicommons. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo, keep as non-free. This is a complex design and IMO the page flip in the corner is sufficiently creative to push it over US TOO. -Fastily09:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is also from Russian state museums, and was apparently purchased by the museum from a Russian collector in 1918 ([1]). Felix QW (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons' general opinion is here; publication can generally be assumed shortly after painting. Certainly when things like this leave copyright in their home country, I envision no problem uploading to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with that, not for works of fine art anyway. Unlike commercial photographers, fine artists often create works and keep them for themselves for an indefinite period. Without any evidence either way, I don't believe that a work of fine art can be considered contemporarily published beyond significant doubt. Felix QW (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Acquired by the Phillips Collection, where it is still on display, in 1923 [2]. So if sale and exhibition are considered publication, then this should be counted published in 1923. Felix QW (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cropped version, discard other. The uncropped one is poor as an identification image which it is currently being used for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1912 by a Russian collector and then on public display from 1918, according to the Impressionist gallery. Felix QW (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, it's not a panacea given that the file is currently being used in six articles and on one user page. If converted to non-free, the file will need to be removed from the user page per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. That leaves the non-free uses in the six articles to be assessed since it shouldn't be assumed that adding a rationale for each use autoatically means the use is policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. The use in Goldfish (Matisse) seems OK per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, but it could be pretty hard to justify the other non-free uses. The non-free uses in "Fish", "Fish in culture" and "Goldfish" seem near impossible to justify and almost certainly would need to go. The use in "Henri Matisse and goldfish" might be justifiable, but there are other reperesentative free examples of the same subject matter being used which might mean this particular file is not needed. The same could be said for the use in Henri Matisse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to non-free For this one, it would be difficult to justify contemporary publication, as one of the MoMA curators wrote [3]:
In fact, this is a painting that he didn’t exhibit until 1949, 35 years after it was made.
Unless it emerges that this exhibition happens to have been in the US and did not pass the required formalities, I do not think we can say that this painting is in the public domain in the US. Felix QW (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I posted in the FFD thread right above this one, converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, but it also means the each of the individual eight uses of the file would need to be assessed. Since three of these uses are not in the article namespace, they fail WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files and the file will need to be removed from those pages. Of the remaining five uses (Color field, Museum of Modern Art, View of Notre-Dame, List of works by Henri Matisse and Henri Matisse), there doesn't seem any way to justify non-free use in "Color Field" given the broad scope of the subject matter and item #6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The same applies to the use in "Museum of Modern Art" with the added problem of WP:NFG. The use in the list articles has issues with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, and WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES since non-free content is, in principle, pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of lists or tables. That leaves the non-free uses in "View of Notre Dame" and "Henri Matisee". Using an non-free image of a painting file for primary identifiction purposes in a stand-alone article about said painting is almost certainly policy compliant, but using the same image in an article about the artist who painted the painting runs into problems with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, particularly since there are multiple free equivalent images being used in the article as representative examples of the artist's work and style. Simply posting things such as "convert to non-free" or "Please add a [non-]free use template to the article" isn't really helpful when the file being discussed is being used on multiple pages because not each of those particular uses is automatically non-free content use compliant just because a non-free use rationale is added for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed analysis, Marchjuly! I was merely commenting on the copyright status and usually defer to the expertise of others regarding the eligibility for non-free use. I seemed to me that non-free use on its own article page is almost certainly fine and that therefore deletion is not a plausible outcome. However, I also concur that it will likely have to be removed from the other pages that it is used for, per your detailed rationale above. Felix QW (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious copyright-related information. Author/creator was listed as Vivienne Medrano, which is the creator of the show (Hazbin Hotel). However, following the fandom URL link provided by the uploader as the image source, the creator is “John write”, not Vivienne Medrano. Also, the description of the non-free image usage was “Promotional still of the character Alastor”, which seems odd, given it comes from Fandom and not the show nor the show creator. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creator delete I'll freely admit this was a mistake on my part and I assumed it was a promotional still as per common for such subjects and not fan art. I do feel though the article in question needs a proper image, I may clean up a screenshot from the show for such purposes later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit I've replaced the image per the above struck comment with a cleaned up screenshot, and adjusted the fair use rationale to reflect that as the source complete with a link to the video and a time stamp for additional verification. @WeatherWriter: I trust this will suffice now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Even if the photo is free, the painting itself may not be. Commons is pretty cavalier about this, but should we be? grendel|khan18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a major 1904 Matisse painting which has its own article and thus is irreplaceable as a page illustration. Should we be? 1904! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which part of that section was unclear, but if that's the meaning you took away it should be reworded. Are you looking at the second-to-last paragraph that's specifically about sound recordings? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the section quoting from another text: “publication occurred when … the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public...” (Nimmer, § 4.039(A) Internal citations removed.)Felix QW (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I remembered it was that it was pointed out to me in a very similar situation over at Commons, where I was the one claiming the copyright situation was unclear. Felix QW (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has also been some response on the related Commons thread opened by the nominator here. The general message seems to be "as long as the painting somehow left the artist, it's probably fine", although the details seem to be washy even to the more expert Commons commentators. Felix QW (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the copyright question on this is clear: absent evidence of publication, we have to treat this as unpublished. As such, it will enter the public domain in January 2025. "Publication" for a painting is typically synonymous with reproduction. If it's copied, if it appears in print, etc. Yes, that means most old paintings were not published. That doesn't mean they never enter the public domain, it just means that claims about public domain that assume publication are invalid. They enter the public domain (in the US and France, at least), 70 years after the death of the author. Not !voting delete because it sounds like someone's going to make an NFCC claim -- and that's a whole different question. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, seriously? This is one of Matisse's most famous works, it has its own page (as do most of the paintings you are nominating) and thus is irreplaceable as an illustration for that page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding from reading c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US is that the definition of publication given at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication is that of the current law, in force from 1978 onwards. Prior to that, the concept of publication was much wider, and for instance included selling the original work as such. This renders the painting under discussion published in 1910, as it was sold upon completion to an art collector in Moscow. Felix QW (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, the source link is invalid, so I'm not sure if the museum claims copyright, if that's valid. grendel|khan18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as non-free This seems to have been purchased by a museum from the painter in 1945, and I have been unable to find any exhibition record before that date. It does seem to be discussed sufficiently in its own article for non-free local use. Felix QW (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. This image is used on 11 articles, probably most can be templated for fair-use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the MoMA page linked in the nomination, this image was acquired from the artist in 1926 and sold to a collector in London. So if we follow the line that that sale of the original constitutes publication prior to 1978, then this image has been published by 1926. Felix QW (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. grendel|khan23:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such a weird requirement for photos of portraits. Was this discussed somewhere before starting deleting files? Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I have been able to find out so far was it currently seems to be located in the chamber of deputies of the Province of Salta. Should it have been made for this purpose, it may be considered to have been published in 1918. Felix QW (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This non-free image is being used in two articles with the same rationale that it is for primary visual identification. It is indeed being used for that purpose for Kuantan, and I recommend we keep that usage. However, its use in List of cities in Malaysia is entirely decorative and is certainly not identifying the topic of the article which is the list and recommend to remove the usage in the list as it fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stated rationale says it’s used to illustrate subject of biographical article, when in fact the article is about an event and not a person. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event sort of doubles as a biography, involving the victim's life and how it ended, etc. An image is as necessary to understand the event as it is for any biography of a person. Nearly all GA and FA class articles of this type use this same rationale - while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, FA articles using it generally is a sign it is accepted practice. See Murder of Joanna Yeates, Murder of Dwayne Jones, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, all FA class event based articles with fair use victim images.
In fact, I can't find a single FA class article of this type that doesn't have an image of the victim. This is standard practice. To remove images would effect hundreds of pages on every single article of this type and requires much wider discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A notable murder case almost always involves why a person was murdered and their background. It is necessary for the same reasons to identify the murder victim as a biography article, as they are the key focus of the event, therefore fulfilling the same reasons a dead person's biography allows a non free image of them - for identification. Your interpretation is overly literal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Vancouver logo is very simple in design. Although Canada's copyright law is inherited from the British Empire, Canadian judicial precedents are very different from those in the UK or Australia. The minimum copyright protection in Canada is probably greater than that in the United States, and Vancouver's city logo is unlikely to meet the minimum copyright protection in the United States.
Please replace the original fair use tag with {{PD-textlogo}} and move it to wikicommons.
Merely identifies Britney Spears and two other females in waitress outfits. Doesn't contextually signify the whole song or the whole music video or text description that can be already understood without this image. Omission may not impact such understanding. George Ho (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's the back cover of the 1982 (not 1976) UK release. The front cover contains a photo of the Beatles. Furthermore, the back cover contains one of EMI logos, which apparently looks complex enough for copyright, especially upon close-up (45cat,ebay).
Although this box set contains multiple non-free cover arts (and thus cannot be moved to Commons), someone could take a photo of the box set and release the photo under a free license, per WP:FREER. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a G12 that was challenged by the uploader after I initially deleted the image. The image is from the web site of the United States National Weather Service. (source page). US Federal works are automatically public domain. But in this case, the image is not the work of the agency or one of its employees. It is provided by a person named Jeff Sisson as acknowledged in the image gallery credits. The basis for this image being public domain is this disclaimer page which states that anybody donating photos agrees to release it as public domain. The oddity about the page is that it for the Sioux Falls, SD weather forecast office as can be seen on the page, the navigation breadcrumb trail, and URL. There is no corresponding disclaimer for the La Crosse, WI office which is where this image is from. The language of the disclaimer covers the National Weather Service with no reference to a specific office. Discussion about the status of this image is needed. If kept, the licensing will need to be corrected as this is not PD as a UD government work, but is PD because the author (Jeff Sisson) has made it so. Whpq (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – The Commons has had this debate several times before, hence why Template:PD-NWS exists separately from Template:PD-USGov-NOAA (NOAA is the parent organization of NWS). On the PD-NWS template, there is actually a perfect example of why NWS images are PD. File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg (currently in use on Tornadoes of 2022) was nominated for deletion on the Commons on grounds it wasn't PD as it wasn't taken by an NWS employee. To note, the image has a large watermark over it, but not a copyright symbol. That deletion discussion determined it was indeed public domain. In fact, I was actually the editor who question it in the first place only because of the watermark. The statement holds up. If I spent more time digging, I could probably find several more deletion discussions regarding the PD-NWS template, but thousands of images exist under it, because NWS allows users who aren't federal employees to submit images into the public domain. Either way, this is an unwatermarked image on weather.gov, so there is no question that it is public domain. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Thanks for the information. I was not aware of this. My encounters with other federal agency web sites do not have contributor photos released as PD. This nomination is withdrawn as the main concern was the applicability of the PD license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who originally tagged this as F9, based on the contributor's (wrong) choice of copyright tag. And like Whpq, I did not know that the NWS has this condition for external contributions.
That said, we do not yet know the terms under which Jeff Sissoon contributed his photos. (Archive.org seems temporarily down as I'm typing this.) From one of the Commons cases linked by User:WeatherWriter above, I can see that the earliest archive date of that policy is 2015.
If we can establish that Sisoon contributed his photos after 13 May 2009, then we should keep
Because we cannot prove either when these terms came into force, nor when Sisson made his contribution or under what terms, we cannot just assume that this condition has always existed, and we must delete
Update: I just realised that the PD-NWS template at Commons documents this disclaimer existing as early as 13 May 2009[4] -- so that's our new baseline. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update #2: archive.org is back, so here are the dates we can be certain of:
The Commons' own PD-NWS template is a secondary source that mentions this arrangement existing since at least 13 May 2009 according to its history
Jeff Sisson's contribution to the NWS was made sometime before 19 September 2015 earliest capture on archive.org, but crucially to this discussion, we do not know when. Other submissions on the same page date back as early as 2006, and Sisson's contribution is nestled amongst ones made in 2008, but unfortunately, the submissions aren't in chronological order either.
Unless we can establish (a) when NWS received Sisson's contributions and (b) what terms existed at that time, we cannot prove that this is a free image. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, older photographs were not taken by the NWS until they started their website. That has been the disclaimer for their website forever, meaning all photos are PD unless noted. This debate really came because it was uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Commons. This is a Commons debate which has already been solved. So my !vote remains the same as this is a PD image and I would have uploaded to the Commons myself and I will probably export it or upload it later this evening to the Commons as a public domain image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but as far as I've been able to tell, we don't have any actual evidence for this disclaimer being part of the NWS website "forever", only since 13 May 2009. Do you have anything that proves otherwise?
The Commons tag makes perfect sense for any images that were uploaded after that date, but before that date, we can't know what terms it was uploaded under. And in this case, we simply don't know when Sisson uploaded his photo.--Rlandmann (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect, I don't see how a snippet of a song can't tell readers more about the song. It's the thing itself. There's nothing more informative. Bremps...07:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#1, as it is replaceable with a free image. Firstly, File:Ariane 6 PPH cutaway-en.svg provides more encyclopedic information that this image, and secondly a freely licenced image could be found, as someone with correct clearance could licence a free photograph, or someone like NASA could licence one appropriately for Wikipedia (under a government free licence). Also, this is not a "historic image" like the non free template claims. Also, this is lacking a valid non-free use rationale, and unless one is added that demonstrates that it meets all of the WP:NFCC, then this image cannot be used. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I was the editor who removed the prod tag from the file because at the time it was the only representation of the cover version. Now that a more acceptable file has been made, that would should be used instead since the article has a sourced section with critical commentary about this cover version that was the most successful charting version of the song. Aspects (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This cover art is of a four-track French EP release (45cat, discogs). No two-track single releases use this cover art. Furthermore, the EP itself hasn't been yet proven notable. George Ho (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note to newcomers: This discussion centers around whether this image aligns with the Wikipedia's WP:Image use policy, with particular concern around the WP:Non-free content criteria, or NFCC. This image is a copyrighted work of Evan Vucci, who has not licensed the work under a free license. It is legally prohibited to redistribute this file without the author's permission. NFCC sets out criteria for how these copyrighted works can be used in Wikipedia, under the US doctrine of fair use, which allows copyrighted works to be redistributed without permissions in some contexts. This is not a discussion on how significant or iconic the photo is, but rather how it satisfies NFCC. Comments unsupported by policy will be given less weight by the closer of this discussion. Catalk to me!11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article. Scu ba (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump". Di (they-them) (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The'fact' is you used jibe in a statement about the perceived lack of something 'historical' in the attempted assassination of a world leader. 174.29.184.14 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point. USA1855 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this. BarntToust (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. It is ludicrous to think that this iconic and historical image should be deleted. Wikipedia would become a laughingstock. This image is shared millions of times all over the world. There is no way to stop. Brianahier (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think opposition comes more from historical biases rather then anything else.
The presidencies are defining history, and campaigns are the things that decide presidencies. For example something as seemingly insignificant as Dean scream has its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Why? Because it tanked him in the polls and deprived him of shot at presidency possibly changing course of history, and without a doubt changing power balance in DNC.
This photo will be signifier of a moment in which potential next president escaped with his life. It is historic, and even more if Trump wins presidency. People want it deleted, not because it is not, but because of personal antipathy. It makes him look really good with fist in the air, triumphantly standing after surviving assassination attempt by inches. Moderators want it deleted to not promote positive image of Trump in eyes of potential readers, not because lack of educational value. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is already a laughing stock. Also the author of this proposal has pronouns on its page. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. 178.222.30.152 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - find a similar image that does not violate WP:NFCC as well as the copyright of the photographer who owns the image and deserves to have his rights protected. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image. According to Section 107, fair use covers "...purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". This is clearly news reporting. The article mentions that Trump pumped his first in the air and the photo complements this by showing a visual image of that action. Also if the use here is for a non-commercial, educational purpose, this should be fair use. 2601:248:5283:F2E0:B194:7890:66B6:DEA6 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input; While Fair Use legally might cover Wikipedia, our policies are actually much more strict than usual. See WP:FAIRUSE.
The stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports Wikipedia servers and software, 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." [...] 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.TheWikiToby (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "more strict than usual". You mean "have higher standards than most Internet sources for information." Right?
Also, I don't see how the use of this image isn't empowering knowledge.
If it is Fair Use, by the standards you read off to us, it is fair game. Since, it is used in an educational way.
I haven't read the Source you provided though. My apologies if the bulk of your argument is there. But your main argument/evidence should be here so we don't have to click away or lose our progress commenting by checking it out.
Delete: It's a copyrighted image that isn't needed to understand the article, plain and simple. It's nicely framed shot, but it isn't required for the understanding of the article. The blood is barely even visible and it doesn't even display the actual shooting. There is no reason to infringe upon the rights of the photographer in this sense. ULPS(talk • contribs)05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. There does not seem to be any justification for why this image needs to be included without the copyright holder’s consent. Zorra31P (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that, it will be difficult to illustrate articles related to either this photo or this particular event. Why can't Wikipedia wait a little longer to use copyright free images that I believe will be available soon? Mhatopzz (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable. HandIsNotNookls (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation (US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link, I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~ TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch. Jan-Janko (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the most notable image and is shown throughout the media (or different variations of Trump raising his fist) so it is most informative to readers and the most relevant image to display in the infobox. Bill Williams00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo. BarntToust (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing clear bias and it's pretty obvious you want the picture removed because of the effect that you perceive it having in the public - an effect you clearly do not like. The picture should stay because of its historical significance, regardless of how you feel about it or the ways you think someone on social media might be using it. I don't even see how that's relevant or why you even mentioned it, other than to demonstrate your bias. 178.222.30.152 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - exactly what I've spoken of in previous comment. Zathraas wants it deleted, because it shows image of Trump as a 'though guy' rather then lack of educational substance. Disingenuous reasoning, that should be dismissed. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established. Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above - it's too soon to be sure that free media will not be available, and I don't think the photo is strictly necessary to significantly increase understanding about the topic. As such, fair use shouldn't be claimed. Gazamp (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp×g🗯️00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."
For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one? The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Adabow (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away). Adabow (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyrighted image at event with many attendees, likely another acceptable photo of the event will be uploaded to commons in the near future. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article [6]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article [7].
Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique. BarntToust (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uniqueness doesn’t establish fair use. If anything, it argues against it, as a unique photo has a larger market value, will will be more impacted by it being illegally hosted on Wikipedia Timtjtim (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while only hours after the incident, RS have already described the photo as -at least- very important. Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too. Juxlos (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too - that's more of a reason to delete. Commercial value of a current image. Can't claim fair use. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp×g🗯️01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."jp×g🗯️02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This actually proves others' points relating to fair use, that there are other photos out there, and thus this individual photo cannot meet NFCC as a unique photo that we must use. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1). WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --RicoRico (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant. Nosferattus (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) —Cryptic01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image. Mhatopzz (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.
Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view NoKNoC (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia. Skirjamak (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?
Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.
The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character.KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary.Real tlhingan (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.
It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.
Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.
Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter. Hanoi89computerlover (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt GodzillamanRor (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep! 68.10.108.140 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the current status of online circulation of this picture, it almost certainly falls under the category of "fair use". Normchou💬18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photo itself (not just the event it depicts) is important, having been called a "history-changing photo", a "legendary American photograph", "undeniably one of the great compositions in U.S. photographic history" ([13], [14]). It deserves its own article. But since for now it doesn't have its own article , and is instead dealt with as a section within Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the fair use inclusion of the photo also has to be in that article. Note that it is not there to illustrate the assasination attempt, but to illustrate the photo itself as a topic. Angbor (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However there is a non-zero chance that the photo itself may prove itself deserving of an article, at which point it would be fine to have there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above (disregarding those mentioning "political bias", as I do not see any merit to these). Await Creative Commons photograph. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a historical picture. It is already widely shared around the world, so I don’t know why Wikipedia wouldn’t want to keep it. FaChol (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the image itself is extensively discussed on the article. This is more subjective, but the article feels incomplete without the picture. Collorizador (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no similar free image"—It's too early to say that. There were reported to be 50,000 people attending. WP:NFCC#1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's highly likely that there is another photo of the event which is free or could be made free by the owner. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users claiming this is an historic image: the only way this is going to get kept is if somebody adds sourced commentary about the image itself to the article; it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand bolded keeps in a row here. Policy's as unambiguous as it gets on this point. —Cryptic01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be noted, this doesn't just mean commentary about "Trump was photo'd with his fist raised", it would have to be about this exact photo at this point in time, need RS's talking about Evan Vucci's Trump photo. Because it's still eminently possible there's a photographer out there who took one of the many similar images and could release it as Creative Commons. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think WP:F7b applies here; [15] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in my comment is from our article (or at least what was in it when I made the comment). The article is changing quickly, but it seems relatively stable that the photo is commented on in the article itself and said commentary has been sourced. That strikes me as being ineligible for deletion under F7b, unless I'm missing something. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo. Adabow (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is an article on this particular photograph, somehow. Bedivere (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Keep as the use on the article about the photograph itself is appropriate. Remove from the assassination attempt article. --Bedivere (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the is there COMENTARY? argument is being satisfied, so that can no longer be realistically used as a definitive reason against, also, do wait for more commentary, surely more will come. BarntToust (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cle notes that a different photo is being used by his allies. Thus, it may be the one that becomes iconic instead. It's simply too early to tell. -- i Zanimum (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article, @Skyshifter. Answering that question is critical to this picture being used. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there any freely licensed photographs of this shooting? The photo of Trump with his fist up is somewhat iconic at the moment, and we could use non-free images if no free ones exist (we can't exactly make free ones exist if they don't, since this event already occurred). But I do wonder: is it truly necessary to use a photo like that here? Is it irreplaceable? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Trump's supporters may not even know what a Creative Commons license is. It takes a special kind of not-normal, "nerd" (not used derogatorily, only factually) type of person to understand those things, and the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts. And only the few in the front rows could be able to take good pics. Don't count on it. BarntToust (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Trump Supporters" instead of "the general public" can be construed as an attack on that group, especially when referring to things they allegedly do not know. Reads like "Those stupid DRUMPFKINS don't know bout the Creative Commons, those rural morons!". Perhaps you could consider better phrasing for your comment, such as "general public", "non-registered users", "non-Wikipedians" etc. WP:Etiquette point 4. 86.180.196.148 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user goes on to say "the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts", and the phrasing used was "Trump's supporters", which is a subtle difference but is a factual descriptor of who was at the event. RadioAlloy (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very specious reasoning to declare that "Trump supporter" is a factual descriptor of all attendees. Can you provide a source that everyone in attendance was a Trump supporter, including all members of the media? Seems a big stretch to suggest that no Independents, Democrats or Undecideds were there. (EDIT: missing word) 86.180.196.148 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but only trump supporters go to trump rallies. Let's be honest for a second, the man is divisive and the only people that go to his rallies are his die hard supporters. Anyone remotely leaning demo wouldn't be caught dead at a cult meeting.
I'm referring to people, not the photographers there in this case.. We needn't rely on potential for someone to decide, "well, I somehow managed to snap a pic in juuuuust the right moment here, let me release it from my ownership forever". It's a big thing, letting people at unrestricted use of a photo.
Yeah, I should've referred to the minority of people who are there not for the obvious reason to rally at a rally along with everyone for a catch-all term. It does sound bad when taken out of context. I do have to admit, I really don't trust that most people in a given situation, regardless of political affiliation or any other unrelated aspect of their persons, would be familiar with the process, or even understand commons as a system. It's not an insult to them, it's just not expecting them to be familiar with things that most are not. Or simply be aware of such a system. If that were so and everyone was familiar with Commons, we'd have a new infobox picture of Ryan Reynolds every time he and Blake Lively go out to eat. That is, if someone could get a good pic of him. It's an extended metaphor. It does seem bad when taken the wrong way, but I'd like to assure you that it's really not what I intend. I don't want to expect anything that has many possible roadblocks. BarntToust (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFCCP#1. It is impossible to know if there is a non-free equivalent right now. Somebody else could have been close enough to take a picture of Trump, and it is possible that a person may release one under a compatible license in the near future. Also fails #2 because the photographer is certainly seeking to sell this picture. If reliable sources begin to write about this particular image, then it might be appropriate to use the image in the context of that description; per #8 it certainly shouldn't be in the infobox, divorced from that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the image has been moved below, obviating the concerns about commentary on the image. Howeer, this still fails NFCCP 2, so I am still in favor of deleting. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - clearly violates image policy. Its way too soon to conclude that there isn't a free alternative. Surely, given this hasn't even been published in newspapers yet, it may be impacting the market value of the image. If used, surely it should be much lower resolution. I don't see how it helps the understanding of the event; there's no context to the blood. How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article? Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the commentary, please. It's there, making the image relevant. Maybe put photo down there? Put commentary summary of it up there? BarntToust (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is some photographer's greatest work of their life, and not to be used without compensation. This is not a blurry album cover type of fair use. Abductive (reasoning)02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Okay, that is your opinion and not very relevant to its purpose, which has been defined above. Please keep such out of rationale for deletion. BarntToust (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free use rationale relies on the image being cropped and low-resolution, but Abductive is emphasizing that this image has a high commercial value that is infringed by Wikipedia's unlicensed usage. The "purpose" of using this image to illustrate the event is insufficient because the article successfully explains the event without relying on the photo. Even the newly added commentary on politicians posting raised fist images is an insufficient justification because some are posting photos other than Vucci's, so we do not need to infringe on this specific image to illustrate that commentary either. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This logic could be used to delete the Tank Man photo or the painting Guernica. Not saying that you do support that position, but following that chain of logic would lead to that sort of thing. Bremps...03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those images are used on pages about the images themselves, so they are necessary for understanding the subject. This is not the case with the shooting. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so we should have deleted them, before they'd even been printed in the newspapers (for tank man at least). Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker? It is a legitimate website. and, Really? Op-ed is not the word for writers' opinions. That's what commentary IS, Zaathras. Please understand this. BarntToust (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, commentary on stuff like that IS NOT what you are making it out to be, @Zaathras. It's valued input on the significance of an image. I think you've got the New York Post and The New Yorker confused. BarntToust (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Norris, Mary (May 10, 2015). "How I proofread my way to Philip Roth's heart". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 12, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. It has been more than 20 years since I became a page OK'er—a position that exists only at the New Yorker, where you query-proofread pieces and manage them, with the editor, the author, a fact-checker, and a second proofreader, until they go to press.
^"Mary Norris: The nit-picking glory of the New Yorker's comma queen". TED. April 15, 2016. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. Copy editing for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop for a major league baseball team—every little movement gets picked over by the critics ... E. B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker: 'They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body.'
User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING. Vanilla Wizard 💙03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all! BarntToust (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) —Cryptic03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability. BarntToust (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 26 (talk • contribs)
Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that.nableezy - 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary was necessary to keep the image from being deleted immediately, but it's not by itself sufficient. Every non-free image has to meet every one of the WP:non-free content criteria, and I've still got grave concerns about #2 and #8, and lesser ones about #1 and #10 (it's not at all clear, for example, that it was first published by Business Insider). —Cryptic03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them. R. G. Checkers talk03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from the template itself ({{Non-free historic image}}): Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of 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). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of 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).JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article. BarntToust (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of 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). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context. BarntToust (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd argue it counts as a historic image, considering how widespread it currently is and how many people associate this event with this image and Trump's reaction. Justrz (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontesta Your comment didn't involve a US President being shot or two people getting killed. Please keep the sass down to acceptable levels. (I think you're a masterclass at it though, notwithstanding this discussion.) BarntToust (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for fair use to apply for our purposes and according to Wikipedia guidelines there cannot exist any other photo that would depict the event that is available via the commons. Thousands of people were at this event, it is probably best to wait for someone to upload their personal photo to commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is nothing more unlikely than that. The only reason why these companies were established is to make cash, not to create a free press (content) or so --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:COPYVIO. Historic or not (of course, it certainly is), we have guidelines to adhere to right now as a community, and I think this fact should take precedence - there are fair use images already out that depict the situation just as completely and wholly as this. DualDoppler (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on copyright grounds, per arguments by DualDoppler. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. -Mardus /talk05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like him or not, this image is going to be iconic - numerous sources are already calling this a historic image and that is not going to change. It should be removed from the infobox, and then replaced with a free image when one becomes available, but § Effects on Trump's public image describes the image and its impact and can justifiably be used there. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no logical or encyclopedic reason to remove the image. This image is the one most commonly used by the media and by those in social media as the means by which the event is most recognizable and understood. It is not that much different from the one most commonly associated with the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, and is currently used on Wikipedia for the article covering said attempt. Given its wide circulation throughout the media, there is little basis to state that this image shouldn't be used because of copyright. As has been said before, this is a historic image and that alone should merit its keeping on the article. Vivaporius (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as we have other copyrighted historic images that aren’t in articles discussing the image. This will very likely become an iconic image. So I think it’ll qualify as fair use. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now if for some uncanny reason someone finds a free image showing this; then I’d be inclined to support deletion. But until then, you can throw me #8, #2, #5, or whatever other criteria you want to throw at me, but unless someone can actually replace this with a free one, or show me where there would be an obvious violation; I’m not backing down from my opinion and won’t be persuaded to support deletion. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been circulating in some of the largest media outlets out there like CNN who say as much too. From CNN: 'The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious Covid-19 infection.' —"Attack on Trump reopens a chilling chapter in American politics"
Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one.Zyxrq (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy fair use requirements. It is likely that other appropriate free images will eventually become available from among the many spectators that were filming during the event. -- Tom Ntalk/contrib21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is already being shown on multiple news websites including CNN, and is being posted everywhere online. It's the most recognizable image there can be of this event. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.
Keep. The media is calling this specific image"one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence. Endwise (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#2 is I think the most reasonable concern, but our version is low-res and the photo has already been licensed to hundreds of news outlets, so we probably aren't really hurting its commercial success? Endwise (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep. Bremps...08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the keep !votes that don't say how it meets NFCC are not worth much. It is too early to say whether it meets NFCCP 1, while 5 and 8 are borderline at best and it definately fails 2. Aircorn(talk)08:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3). Alaexis¿question?08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what other people advocating for deletion was concerned about was NFCC #8, about which at the time, the article lacked a major discussion on the photo(now it does imo). Catalk to me!11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. GeraldWL08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough look at the opposition (at least, some) indicates such. With the presence of extensive commentary, I do not consider copyright to be a hindrance to the image being present in the art., as it is in low res, and is cropped. Fair use is applicable in this case. GeraldWL14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately.Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion. Joe (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem? SuperΨDro09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly after the event occurred no less, after the shooter was neutralized. There are images taken place during the actual attempt, which should take priority. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles are trickling into the mainstream press with titles like Trump’s Raised Fist Will Make History — And Define His Candidacy (Politico) and "Amid the Mayhem, Trump Pumped His Fist and Revealed His Instincts" (The New York Times). Trump's reaction to the attack is notable in and of itself, and this image is an ideal means of illustrating that aspect of the event. Particularly if this ends up being a turning point in the campaign—which is certainly credible considering how other assassination attempts of political candidates has gone in the past—having this image will be a critical piece of Wikipedia's coverage of the event.
Now, for the policy wonks—There is clearly no way to get a free use image of this not-legally-recreatable event (NFCC #1), the photographer's commercial opportunities are clearly not being hampered by us running it since so many mainstream outlets are running the full-size image (NFCC #2), it is used once to illustrate one article (NFCC #3, #7), as stated before it has been previously published in major news sources (NFCC #4), it is encyclopedic (NFCC #5, although I contend that this site has ground the word "encyclopedic" down into such a fine paste that it has no meaning anymore, but that's what the policy asks for here), I can see no reason it would violate WP:IUP (NFCC #6), as the de facto defining image of the event it inherently increases readers' understanding of the article topic and would be detrimental to the readers' understanding (NFCC #8), NFCC #9 is not relevant to a deletion discussion, and the image description page looks up to snuff (NFCC #10). —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current layout with the image used in a section specifically discussing impact and coverage of the image should be fine. Whether in can be used for the article overall should be up to people better versed in copyright law. — jonas (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph. But I agree that we must replace the photograph when a free image available. Mmnashrullah (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Since no one on the Keep side has offered more persuasive reasons than "common use" or "historical event", I find myself, as a law student, obliged to give some, though I confess that my reasons may rather be more like "legal policy" instead of "original text". I also invite @BluePenguin18 to join the discussion here so that we can better address this case.
BluePenguin18 has mentioned that the photo here falls undoubtedly under the protection of US copyright law, which I won't oppose. Here I'll rather refer to a German case that the Wiki community has lost in a row of appeals (BGH, 20.12.2018 - I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos): while the artworks in the museum were all in public domain, the German court found the photos on Wiki infringing, relying on the photographer’s neighboring right (no copyright for “Lichtbilder” there), as well as the museum’s land right along with standard form contract ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"). Two inspirations: first, even without copyright, monopoly on info may still occur through other means; second, throughout and even after the whole legal process Wikimedia has been a staunch endorser of free use. [1]. For us Wikipedians, fair use should never be a compliance requirement which hinders our free expression. Rather we have a long history of “rebel”.
You may argue that here we’re talking about a newly created picture, not something in the public domain, and the two cases must be distinguished. Fine. But from the outset of the modern interpretation of fair use doctrine (since Campbell) there has not been a consensus that it is only a defense for customers who accidentally and “harmlessly” takes a free riding. Rather, many scholars have seen fair use as per se shaping the limits of copyright and hence encouraging positive secondary uses, even if the use is at odds with the original author’s potential commercial plan. (See for example, “Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?” by Lydia Pallas Loren, 2015.)
Among the four factors of fair use, Factor 4, i.e. market incentives, has often been seen as significantly, if not decisively, important. Yet few, if not none, has talked about it here. We need to recognize that Evan Vucci, as an employee of AP and already prize-winning photographer, enjoys much more economic benefits from elsewhere than from a petty license on Wiki. And due to the news nature of the photo he may expect more financial interests from the next Pulitzer Prize rather than from broad online licensing. More importantly, after the news he HAS POSTED THE PHOTO ON THE X PLATFORM so that anyone from Elon Musk to a nobody can freely cite it. Did he just post a low-quality copy of the photo there so that he can price discriminate on different sites? Nope. And he must be aware that the photos online does not harm his capacity to license other famous magazines and papers.
Conclusion, even if Vucci does really want more profits from Wiki, that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! -- Jason211pacem (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I find that some among us believe that "since there are photos accurately capturing the moment of shooting, we shouldn't use Vucci's photo here" or "we may keep until we find closer moment to the shooting". That sounds quite weird to me. Then we must replace the headline photo in Assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK's convoy minutes before the event) with one accurately capturing the bullet passing through the poor president's head? Remember that the moment seized by Vucci happened just ONE MINUTE after the shot. We need not question its news value. Jason211pacem (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use File:JFK limousine.png because it is both the image most associated with the event's news coverage and in the public domain. Copyrighted images cannot be used on Wikipedia simply because they satisfy the first criterion. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "how does fair use align with public expression" and "how does one assert copyright ownership in the age of mass online image sharing" are great topics of debate for a law class seminar, the Wikimedia Foundation is a registered organisation that has certain legal responsibilities. You will note that Wikipedia's NFCC requirements are stricter than US fair use law, and part of that is because Wikimedia's lawyers do not want to wait for him to DMCA us. I have never seen someone with purported knowledge of copyright law to be so flippant about ignoring it on the basis of 'but it would be really hard for the copyright owner to challenge WP'. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Building off Kingsif, Vucci's decision to post the photo on X is not proof that he is flippant with the image's copyright. The image was already being widely proliferated across social media before Vucci's post, and any photographer knows that policing social media posts for copyright infringement is too cumbersome. By making his own post on X, Vucci was simply promoting his creation to increase its commercial value among institutional customers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the sole reason that the image is easily accessible across tabloid sources, a simple web search will find it instantly. We do not need to have non-free content here that is extremely easy to find elsewhere. Ideally, though, a photographer or agency holding the rights to an image would conduct a VRT release, but I really doubt that would ever happen. There is big money in images like this, hence why Wikipedia needs to be careful - I would not be surprised if the copyright holders look around for violations and sue the reusers as a way of getting some extra money. Redtree21 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other users here have stated, multiple WP:RS have specifically identified this image as notable and of historical importance, and iconic in relation to the event. Thismess (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is low-resolution version (per Wikipedia's fair use policy) of the only photograph in the article that illustrates its subject. Ivan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I understand the point by some above, there is significant doubt this actually meets WP:NFCC criteria, which means this must default to delete. Copyright is a serious deal for Wikipedia, not a game of chicken ([...] that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! is quite out of the question). I think it is far too soon to tell if this is actually a historic image; just because some eager people call it as such on the day of doesn't make it so (especially with so many other images of this). This does not proscribe it in the future if circumstances change. Curbon7 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind mention, Curbon7. My timetable and the lengths of my previous statement didn't allow me to elaborate, so I left a hippy-style conclusion. Yet by saying "let him DMCA us" I didn't meant to completely ignore or topple the copyright regime. About such an idea I am Half Serious. Plz let me clarify it here:
While copyright is absolutely a serious deal, its legal regime should not be treated as moral burdens to the secondary users. Rather, it provides us with instructions and legal tools on negotiating a license with the right holder. DMCA, in particular, falls into such a description, as it tries to maintain a balance among right holders, platforms and net users. While "let him sue" may sound appalling, I don't find it a taboo for a copyright discussion.
By saying "fair use is not a compliance requirement" I don't mean ANY compliance is unnecessary. Rather, I believe that rules like NFCC is foundational for our forum. Yet my argument is based on the following idea: copyright, like other IP rights, doesn't mean full property rule. For example: A. S. Rinehart, in her 2010 essay "Contracting Patents: A Modern Patent Exhaustion Doctrine", modelled patent exhaustion as a pliability rule which, under certain circumstances, shifts the protection level from property rule to liability rule. I believe the case in copyright fair use is similar. And I further believe that, with a liability rule and a quasi-contract-style protection, the secondary user, based on reasonable good faith, need not immediately refrain from the use and delete the copy; whether our faith is indeed no problem, is subject to the "let him sue" stage. Therefore, we need not resort to the strictest interpretation of NFCC, and an adequate level of application is enough.
So let's pay attention to NFCC. While all 10 criteria should be met, in individual judgments the 10 factors must be correlated. Here I only mention the criteria 1 & 2, which I find most important. While criterion 1 may be the biggest barrier for the secondary use, I think its main focus is rather about citation of literature than about photos. There can be so many different photos serving similar encyclopedic purposes; if we too stringently follow the text, then we may find it quite troubling to search for free yet publicly unknown materials: "Is there any better option than Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima that adequately adresses the WWII History of the United States?" For criterion 2, I must say that my idea may change a little bit if the photo is from a rather humble photographer who happens to make their creation viral (I know it's hard for pixiv artists to make money through single pictures, many of them must resort to privitized customizations). But this is a typical case of famous photographer earning a living on his trademark instead of individual photo licenses. -- Jason211pacem (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now with no prejudice against restoring later. There's no way to tell less than 24 hours afterward if this image has a unique significance with no free alternative. The event is significant, but there's no transitive property that conveys a unique significance to the image. There were untold numbers of cameras at the event, making untold numbers of photos. Any one of those may be released for free in the near future. The article is about the event, and not about the image. The image itself needs to be rendered irreplaceable. GMGtalk11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if copyright can be obtained. Otherwise, Delete if we'reunable to. Has anyone attempted to try to contact the photographer for permission to use it on Wikipedia? He does have some social media sources, and I believe he should have an AP e-mail address. Maybe once the event is a month old and is no longer as profitable for the photographer that they may give limited permission to share on Wikipedia. The Legacy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are we supposed to do until the initial flurry of profitability that you describe has passed? Would it not be better to reupload once we have permission and a release from Associate Press (if this ever even occurred)? Redtree21 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Like others said, a former president getting injured in an assassination attempt is an exceptional event; and this photo has probably entered the historical pantheon. Vucci would agree - it's been shared and reproduced on an enormous scale, without any complaints from him at all. Unless we get a notice from AP, there's no need to remove it; in fact, it would be contrary to our mission of being a compendium of knowledge. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The usage is minimal: the extent of use has been reduced by reducing the resolution and cropping. It is implausible that this low resolution cropped version of this photograph which exists in the original, high, resolution, alongside various other high-resolution photographs with the same subject, is commercially usable in itself. This specific file with the dimensions of 514x479px does not have desirable properties for commercial use. The author can benefit from distributing the original version, and this modified version appearing in one Wikipedia article does not substantially diminish his commercial opportunities with respect to this work. I don't think that free images exist that could be used in place of this image to adequately illustrate the section Effects on Trump's public image (permalink). The image is of high contextual significance irrespective of it being a "historical image" because what is depicted has a strong connection to what is being discussed in the section: The footage of his reassurance that he was only lightly wounded to spectators and media alike moments after the assassination attempt was broadcast internationally. The image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air, surrounded by the Secret Service, and with an American flag in the backdrop, was taken by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press and spread on social media shortly afterwards.—Alalch E.13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyrighted image where it is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made (WP:NFCCP#1). However, if the image is one day discussed separately in its own article, then there would obviously be no free equivalent for that article, and fair used could be claimed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if there is an article about the image or the image is used to illustrate a portion of the content of another article. Completely the same. —Alalch E.13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enbyit is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made is a poor reason to delete the photo now. If a new, license compatible photo is found, then we can delete. But if, after deleting this photo, none crops up, we will have deprived readers of valuable information for no real reason. Mach6113:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use. Kingsif (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif I have never heard of the existence of such a policy, nor do I read such a requirement in WP:NFC. Strictly speaking, all copyrighted content will be in the public domain at some point, but that fact does not invalidate our fair use claims Mach6116:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC #1, with added emphasis: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. The point is, can we reasonably say it's not going to be possible for an image to be released freely. A year after the fact, probably, not 24 hours. Future PD is sometimes mentioned, but as far as copyright lifespan before becoming PD — for current works, that’s creator’s lifespan plus 75 years in the US, which Commons requires, so in the realm of indefinite — it’s, as far as I’ve seen, just treated as the same thing, i.e. having to generally agree that there won’t be a free image (until copyright expires on non-free works). Then they can be used fair use until reaching PD. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif The release of an existing image under a free license is not the same thing as the potential creation of new free content. The latter is impossible in this instance, as the event has passed. Mach6117:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on precedent, expectations, from other discussions, I take ‘releasing a pre-existing image with a new free license’ as a form of creating a free image. In my experience, images don’t get kept without sufficient BEFORE and without a compelling reason why no free equivalent will crop up. Give it a bit of time, because generally you have to be able to answer "yes" to all the following:
Will the subject of the depiction not or not likely occur again?
Have all images of the subject been or likely been published?
Are all of these images copyrighted (or have unknown license status, so presumably copyrighted)?
Has some effort been made to approach copyright holders and politely request a commons-compliant license re-release?
The point being, we don’t default to using non-free while still looking for free alternatives. Copyvio errs on the side of caution, if nothing else, and defaults to no image while still looking for free ones. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the photo meets criterion eight by virtue of actually depicting the aftermath of the event itself, in color, something text cannot do. It meets criterion two by cropping and lowering the resolution compared to the original. It meets criterion one because the event has passed, and no free photos of it have, to my knowledge, been released. Mach6113:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think it's hyperbolic to state that it is an historic and iconic image, with only The Situation Room popping to mind as another historic post 9/11 American image. The image is already getting widespread media attention and represents the event well. CaptainTeebs (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super turbo speedy keep This image has been used by thousands of news outlets, has been articulated clearly in the events article, and obviously meets fair use standards. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it's a historical image. All of the above keep arguments are important. The entire article is about what is shown in the image, it's relevant.
98.203.91.148 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Stealth[reply]
Weird, I didn't notice the photo actually being a documentary of the background, shooting, aftermath and public response. It would only qualify for "automatic" fair use if the article was about the image itself, not (one part of) the article being about (as you say) what the image depicts. Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images, better NFCC-compliance arguments are needed. Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I am from Germany so I got no horse in this race. This picture is being used on international news outlets all over the world. No one will remember who shot Trump in 2025 but this photo is going down in history. Edit: The national news used the photo in their coverage: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/trump-wahlkampfveranstaltung-evakuiert-100.html
KEEP. Much as the Zapruder film became vital to the discussion of the Kennedy assassination, this photo is destined to become synonymous with this event. Substituting with another photo well not have the same effect.
Comment Just going to build off my own comment above where I say Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images to address NFCC #8, that is, importance within the specific article it is being used in. Because even if we accept that the photo itself can be fair use (which it probably will be once the immediate commercial opportunities slow down), and that there will never be a free image to depict the entire article subject of the shooting (i.e. that the only way this article can have an image is to use a fair use one; this is incredibly unlikely), we also would need to reach a consensus that the best photographic representation of the article subject is this one, that this is the right fair use image for the article. Personally, I think that a fair use photo depicting the moment of the shooting would probably be more pertinent, even a photo of the rally either beforehand or being evacuated might encapsulate the entire event better. Of course, this is one of the subjective criteria, but it needs to be addressed if trying to !keep. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this does not preclude an article about the photo being created, nor that the analysis in the event article could come to rely on (i.e. need) illustration. It is my understanding that neither of those are relevant at the moment, at least, not as described in the file's fair use template (#10). Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is copyrighted and hasn't been released by the author, and has significant commercial value. A free alternative will almost certainly become available. Horep (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the opposite: to quote myself, Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use.Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an addendum to my above call for deletion. After reading through this discussion, I am struck by the large number of Keeps that seem to either entirely ignore, or seriously downplay the legal issues here. Copyright and respect for that, is one of the more important policies we have as a community. On which note, has anyone considered contacting the AP, and asking them for permission to use their image? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly any comment that suggests that it is appropriate solely due to it being an "iconic image" should just be ignored as that is not even a factor in determining fair use criteria. Someone suggested contacting AP in this thread, but to be honest I think this photo set from Doug Mills at the NYT is a much better depiction of the event as it actually shows the immediate event, so might be worth contacting a few of these outlets. I don't know who would want to take point but yeah, doubt they will give us permission. Who is to say though! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. It's a great photo but there are plenty of free media about the assassination attempt that could also illustrate the event. I think the best comparison is 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and Tank Man. While the Tank Man photo is iconic and historically significant, it isn't present in the article about the main event because there are sufficient free alternatives. Since the photo itself became notable, it gets used in its own article, but not in the article about the main protest/massacre. Citing (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter in which article it is used at as long as it serves a valid illustrative purpose relative to some portion of the text. —Alalch E.16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what's the portion of the text? A paragraph saying a photographer took a really good photo? I think that's pretty thin justification, otherwise every news event would be littered with copyrighted material. Maybe this photo will take on historical significance and a life of its own, but we can't tell that at this point and this website isn't a crystal ball. For all we know, reliable sources will stop talking about it by the end of the news cycle. Citing (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Citing I have no issue with removing this photo from the main article if a free alternative is released. None has, so far, and none could be newly created, as the event has passed. Mach6116:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61: There were thousands (hundreds?) of people at the rally, many of whom were recording or taking photos, and it hasn't been 24 hours. I'd be shocked if *no* free media were uploaded. Citing (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The image is not the exclusive image taken and, less than a day later, we have certainly not exhausted the search for images without copyright restrictions. Furthermore, there is the possibility that we are infringing on a compelling commercial interest by duplicating this image without permission. If an article on the imageorimages is written, then we could have a reason for fair use. The "historic" merit of an image is not a compelling argument in this case and should be understood as not pertinent~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might be historic, not free use as per reasons above. The page is not about the photo itself. If the photo becomes notable, create a new page for the photo. Kunal4 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. We're seeing authors in major publications beginning to write about the image itself, which throws this more into the realm of illustrating the subject of critical commentary, not merely illustrating an event. In such a situation, the issue of effect-on-reuse is less significant, since even another nonfree image wouldn't be able to replace it: the commentary is about this particular image, not about the event that it depicts. However, these are necessarily all primary sources — they date from the historic context of the image's creation, not from significantly afterward — and if secondary sources end up ignoring this image or rejecting the idea that it was of significance, we'll have reason to say that it's not a historically significant image, making it unsuitable for coverage here. Should that be the case, we'll have no justification for claiming fair use for a commercial image. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have noted, there are potential issues with the commercial rights and licensing of this image. Wikipedia must adhere to strict copyright policies to maintain its integrity and legal standing. Additionally, there is evolving context that must be considered. This is a rapidly unfolding and emotionally charged event. We don't yet have a full understanding of how this image is being used or interpreted in various contexts. Its inclusion could unintentionally promote or signal certain narratives before we have a complete picture. Ms.britt (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very wishy-washy language, and frankly almost sounds AI generated. Please cite specific policies... how is "emotionally charged" even relevant here? A large amount of people all over the world by definition are going to find anything on the news "charged". ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because it's a low-res photo - from looking at WP:NFCC, it obviously meets criteria 1 and 4-10, so the discussion boils down to #2 (respect for commercial opportunities) and #3 (minimal usage). A 326x304 thumbnail is all we need for WP purposes, and I can't imagine a low-res version here is going to interfere with actual commercial opportunities for the photographer (because the only people who will pay are going to want either high-res so they can publish it, commercial rights to sell it on shirts etc., or both - WP usage won't interfere with that). I don't think high-res would be OK, but low-res is. Alsadius (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've always strongly disagreed with that guideline, but it is a guideline, and I'm sure someone will remove it from the assassination article. Levivich (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at WP:NFCC, the relevant policy, I'm failing to see which of the ten criteria this doesn't meet. The first four seem the most pertinent, so let's look at them in turn:
No free equivalent - There's no free equivalent to this photo as far as I'm aware.
Respect for commercial opportunities - The cropped, tiny image here should not interfere with normal market usage of the photo.
Minimal usage - This is a single item, and again, it's cropped and shrunk from the original
Previous publication - This was already published by the Associated Press as well as many other news organizations.
The rest of the items are more generic and not an issue at all here, or can be easily corrected if technicalities come up. So I don't see how this fails on policy grounds. It should be kept unless and until a free alternative becomes available. —Torchiesttalkedits21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what research you've done before declaring no free equivalent exists. After all, there are plenty of other pictures of this event out there. And why this image - which has the highest commercial potential - rather than another one? Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It would be nitpicking and not many other political photos are treated this way. I think its a very important photo and the copyright holder wont have an issue.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it isn't "legally prohibited", it's subject to fair use doctrine, of which Wikipedia takes an extremely narrow interpretation for policy reasons unrelated to law (e.g. we are using a tiny 200px thumbnail of the photo and not the actual photo). jp×g🗯️19:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I also concur, ditto, and the cropped photograph with the United States flag partially cut out doesn’t entirely glorify Trump’s survival. (Trying to get political bias out of the way as good Wikipedians should, I mostly add/edit flags on Wikipedia Commons.) Centralismo (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep Fair use, and the related incident needs proper visual identification. Maybe use the entire portion and move it to the infobox, but otherwise, no, this file needs to be on the Wikipedia until an adequate free alternative exists. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this is not the first time an image tagged under the historic image template was used in such a way. We may need more than one template to describe that though. Regardless, I still feel that visual identification of the incident is desperately needed. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's fails WP:NFCC #2, arguably fails NFCC #1. For example, in addition to Vucci's photos, Getty Images includes photos from Rebecca Droke and Jeff Swensen, and I'm sure many others exist as well. Including this picture in Wikipedia at this point in time makes it less likely for someone to upload their own version to Commons. Guettarda (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, per copyright law and fair use law, this photo does not appear to qualify. Any fair use claim is especially knocked down not only because the article of use isn't about the photo, but also because there are large number of other photos also being used in the media about the incident, thus fair use doesn't cover this particular image as a singular representative use. I hope the closer of this discussion takes into account copyright law and WP policy requirements, rather than all the Keep votes above that aren't putting forward a policy argument or even addressing the copyright fair use concerns. SilverserenC23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also about "photographs", plural, and so the question of why this specific image is open again. The current-ness of it all is not helping. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are allowed !votes - whether they're SPAs or make useful arguments is a different question. And it's actually way easier to connect IPs together (e.g. through WHOIS) than for non-CUs to determine if one person is running multiple logged-in accounts. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This historic image will have a strong value in the future. People should learn about the risks of running for public office. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only to accompany text about this image in particular, not to visually identify the event itself. c:File:Butler Farm Show Airport Trump Rally 2024 03 (cropped).jpg is a suitable free alternative infobox photo for Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, so this non-free photo should not be used there. It's perfectly fine, though, that we use this non-free photo in the section where it is mentioned on that article, and in the new article about photography at the rally if it is kept. Because of the level of coverage and commentary on this specific photo, it would still be fine even if free angles of Trump in those moments became available alongside it. 3df (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the discussion here it seems that Trump Pumping His Fist may itself deserve its own page, with this image. But until/unless that page exists it should be deleted. I think (generally) that we should try to develop a mechanism for asking institutions like the NYT release images like this, in this quality, in our capacity as a collective body of English Wikipedia editors. A request like this makes sense for all parties involved. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photo is *the* image of the assassination attempt, which - as a historical event - consists of more than the "when, where, and how." The event's primary effect on history is and will continue to be political, and this image captures that context perfectly.
Moreover, the image itself serves as an efficient summary of the notable sequence of events: the bullet grazed President Trump's ear, the Secret Service swarmed in, and President Trump reacted by pumping his fist at his supporters. I suspect that we would not be having this discussion if the subject of the picture were not Donald Trump. Likewise, I feel that there would be less consternation if the image made Trump look bad. Arguments to the contrary strike me as bad faith pedantry, and may contribute to this site's already diminished standing among the general public. 2601:248:4B00:F320:697D:2F5F:A0E1:DEDD (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Vucci did copyright this photograph, it is being used to illustrate "historically significant events", which is an acceptable use of non-free content on Wikipedia as per WP:NOTFREE. The Star Baron (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although I understand how the image could possibly affect the og's commercial value, it's of my claim of WP:IAR and personal opinion that it should be kept anyways. This image is an important historical event highlighting the increasing political violence in America and the first assassination attempt to a US president since 1981, forty three years ago. It's worth keeping imo for it's notable value, but I still do recognize the danger of IAR'ing for fair use which is why I'm leaving my vote as weak. I wouldn't be surprised if we find consensus to delete it. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not even that big a fan of Trump, actually, I'm no fan of his at all, but anyone denying that this is incredibly salient to the assassination attempt is playing politics with Wikipedia's standards. If not this image to encapsulate the attempt, then which? When most people think about the assassination attempt, this is the image that comes to mind. Let's not be ridiculous here. Suliram (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this to be the clear answer. Or at least an image similar to this. It summarizes the event and the aftermath. Trump got a bloody ear and is still trying to put his fist up in the air and say something. He also did this right after getting pushed into the car. Like, they were pushing him into the car and then he resisted it and pumped his fist before they pushed him into the car for safety. He then said something like "Fuck them!" my Mom said the news reported. I personally hate Trump and the politics he stands for yet there is something about the image of the resilience to the shooting that reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt and his response to a bullet in his chest. (Which a Fox News source which was on the living room TV had brought up.) Teddy was resilient and able to perform a speech and said "it takes more than a bullet to stop a Bull Moose." This was before the time of broader security for the [POTUS]. I believe that a similar image in the article depicting him trying to stay outside the car would be also be useful in some section of the Wiki article here. To show his resilience again. All in all, I believe there to be significant purpose to the image here. And, my thoughts go out to all those hurt in the incident, the former President, the shooter, the innocent attendees, etc. I just wish the US wouldn't allow such a man as the politics of Mr. Trump that put in danger the rights and lives of many minority, queer, and ethnic Americans. My deepest thoughts go out to the victims families at this time, especially the attendee who lost his life. And the shooter who lost his life for a cause that he clearly believed a lot in. I hope he finds peace somehow and condolences to his family/loved ones at this time for their loss as well. HelloHamburger (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Fails NFCC criteria 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Including her YouTube profile picture does not add to readers' understanding of the article's contents, nor does removing it hurt their understanding. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 19:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free screenshot being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Henry Calvin#Career; the file is also being used in Zorro (1957 TV series)#Main. This file was uploaded in 2007 and was being used as the main infobox image for the "Henry Cavin" article, but was replaced by the Commons image File:Henry Calvin (1946-1947).jpg after the non-free was removed by Explicit with this edit in January 2023. Explicit also removed the non-free use rationale for the "Calvin" article with this edit. The file was, however, re-added by ProudLondoner with this edit in January 2024, without giving a reason and without adding a non-free use rationale for the use to the file's page. The use in the "Calvin" article, therefore, fails WP:NFCC#10c, and the file could be removed for that reason alone. After consulting with Explicit about this at User talk:Explicit#File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg, it was recommended that the file's uses be discussed here at FFD because of concerns that the non-free use in the "Zorro" article might also not be policy compliant. I don't think there's any justification for the non-free use in the "Calvin" article, but the use in the "Zorro" article seems borderline to me given that the character "Sergeant Demetrio Lopez Garcia" is listed as a main character. Since no stand-alone article exists about the "Garcia" character, I guess it could be argued the argument for non-free use in the article about the TV show is a bit weak; perhaps a non-free full-cast photo like this, or a publicity still like the ones shown here could be found that is {{PD-US-no notice}}or{{PD-US-not renewed}} given that the show ran from 1957 to 1959 which would make any non-free image unnecessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===July 15===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Comment: Although converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, it's not a panacea given that the file is currently being used in six articles and on one user page. If converted to non-free, the file will need to be removed from the user page per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. That leaves the non-free uses in the six articles to be assessed since it shouldn't be assumed that adding a rationale for each use autoatically means the use is policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. The use in Goldfish (Matisse) seems OK per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, but it could be pretty hard to justify the other non-free uses. The non-free uses in "Fish", "Fish in culture" and "Goldfish" seem near impossible to justify and almost certainly would need to go. The use in "Henri Matisse and goldfish" might be justifiable, but there are other reperesentative free examples of the same subject matter being used which might mean this particular file is not needed. The same could be said for the use in Henri Matisse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep Fair use, and the related incident needs proper visual identification. Maybe use the entire portion and move it to the infobox, but otherwise, no, this file needs to be on the Wikipedia until an adequate free alternative exists. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Museum_of_Modern_Art.jpg){kind=link}
,_oil_on_canvas,_146.5_x_97_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d'Art_Moderne,_Centre_Georges_Pompidou,_Paris.jpg){kind=link}
CrazyVideo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
