- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.
The result was to delete the image.
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
Replaceable fair use tag
There are several free images on Commons, see Commons:Category:Coretta Scott King. January (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the Commons, but regardless I believed the image I used was a better fit especially in the post-mortem time of this article. So for instance, that low quality Coretta Scott King image was used when she was alive. However, after she died, I began to feel that the article would best serve with one from around the time of her marriage to a few years after her husband's death. I have seen the articles of Jacqueline Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy and Maya Angelou and notice their images were taken during their "prime" so to speak, rather than their elderly years. On the Commons, all I see are files that are similar to that age. The main file I propose to use is the one in the "Early widowhood" section, while the other file be taken and used in the article itself. Informant16 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- The examples from other articles you are using for comparison are all free images. The Commons category has an image from 1956 and two from 1964, File:Martin Luther King Jr NYWTS 5.jpg would crop to a good headshot. January (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- While I would be willing to stop this debate on the consensus that we crop the aforementioned image, I would also argue that the image that was being used as the infobox picture still be used on the article as I have done. I understand the initial argument was due to my choice to add the image while maintaining that it was not replaceable, but I do believe that it can be used somewhere else on the article, particularly in the section detailing her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- The civil rights section already has two free images. This one would fail both WP:NFCC#1 and #8. January (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- So what you're telling me is, there's no possible way to keep this image up, under any circumstances? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. A non-free image of a deceased subject is usually only permitted when there are no free images available, and in this instance we have 16 free images. January (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're telling me that other images are essentially to blame for the file not being able for use? If that is the case, then why are there from all accounts and judging by the number of files on the Commons, barely any that are free. And what would you license as an image that you randomly find on the internet, by someone who you can pretty much guess is not the copyright holder? What do you call it? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- On your first point, see WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". I don't understand your second question, are you saying you think some of the files on Commons are unfree? January (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The second question reflects how I found the image, during an image search that led me to a website using it. I knew the website or blog for proper pronunciation and its owner did not harbor any type of control over that image being there in the sense of copyright, meaning that the person did not own the image at all or in any sense of the word. So back to the point I'm making, what justification is there for that person to use the "non-free" image while we supposedly cannot? And also what do you call an image that you find by an image search on the website of someone you know is not the copyright holder. And if I can't use this file, then why don't you report the guy who posted the David Kennedy picture. The claims behind that don't seem credible enough to keep up. I tried using the same justification for most of my images on the commons published between the 1920s to 1977 and all of them got deleted. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- We don't know what, if any, justification the blogger has for using that image, but just because a blogger is possibly using an image in violation of copyright doesn't give us a justification for using it. Regarding {{PD-US-no-notice}}, this only applies if the photograph was originally published without a copyright notice. If someone who wasn't the creator/copyright holder publishes it later without a copyright notice, that doesn't have any effect on the copyright. The uploader of the David Kennedy photograph has linked to a scan of both the front and back of the original photograph from 1968 (you can see a date stamp on the back), which shows no copyright markings. January (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never said anything about us being able to use this image just because they did. However, what I'm trying to get at is the fact that this image has been published everywhere without any copyright notice as far as I can see. And if no copyright anywhere on the original publication is justification for using the image when did this begin, just with this image? Or should the Yolanda King image I uploaded have stayed on Commons? That image had a source, the magazine itself, which did not say on any page anything about the image being copyright. I know for fact that Jet magazine was the copyright holder of that image but did not put any type of claim to keep it. Does that allow us to use the image? I also want to bring up the point of the image we are initially discussing, the one that you request be deleted. I can not see any reasonable nor rational person deciding to go after us for using this image. I also can not see the King family or any other source releasing this under a free license, especially given this image's age. I don't see it. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The crucial point is whether the first publication had a copyright notice. If it was first published was in a magazine, then if the magazine itself had a copyright notice that would be enough. You would need to be able to check the entire issue of that magazine to prove that {{PD-US-no-notice}} applies. Re your other points, see Commons:COM:PRP. January (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The magazine had nothing in it about copyright and not a single thing about a notice on any page. Is that good enough for it to be considered as having no notice? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- That would depend whether this magazine was the first publication of the image. (I think it would be best to raise questions about other images at WP:MCQ to prevent this discussion going off-topic.) January (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well since we are not going to get off topic, I would say that the non-free image rationale is about as good as we are going to get. I also would like to remind you that this image has been up for a number of weeks and I would raise the question, why it is just now being determined as being something that should be deleted? If it's because you just found or stumbled on it, that sounds pretty unprofessional to me and also when it comes to this no notice excuse only being applied "if the photograph was originally published without a copyright notice," I still to this day do not know where that image came from. I don't, all I can tell you is that the blogger was not the person who made it. And I ask, what could possibly be done to keep this image up and under a fair use policy? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not all problems get spotted instantly, I basically raised the problem at the point I spotted it. {{PD-US-no-notice}} is based on US copyright law at the time; before 1978, if a work was first published without a copyright notice, that instantly put it in the public domain. That's why we look at the original publication and recent publications by someone who is probably not the owner of the image are irrelevant. Also if you don't know where exactly the image came from, it fails WP:NFCC#10a. January (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The magazine had nothing in it about copyright and not a single thing about a notice on any page. Is that good enough for it to be considered as having no notice? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The crucial point is whether the first publication had a copyright notice. If it was first published was in a magazine, then if the magazine itself had a copyright notice that would be enough. You would need to be able to check the entire issue of that magazine to prove that {{PD-US-no-notice}} applies. Re your other points, see Commons:COM:PRP. January (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never said anything about us being able to use this image just because they did. However, what I'm trying to get at is the fact that this image has been published everywhere without any copyright notice as far as I can see. And if no copyright anywhere on the original publication is justification for using the image when did this begin, just with this image? Or should the Yolanda King image I uploaded have stayed on Commons? That image had a source, the magazine itself, which did not say on any page anything about the image being copyright. I know for fact that Jet magazine was the copyright holder of that image but did not put any type of claim to keep it. Does that allow us to use the image? I also want to bring up the point of the image we are initially discussing, the one that you request be deleted. I can not see any reasonable nor rational person deciding to go after us for using this image. I also can not see the King family or any other source releasing this under a free license, especially given this image's age. I don't see it. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- We don't know what, if any, justification the blogger has for using that image, but just because a blogger is possibly using an image in violation of copyright doesn't give us a justification for using it. Regarding {{PD-US-no-notice}}, this only applies if the photograph was originally published without a copyright notice. If someone who wasn't the creator/copyright holder publishes it later without a copyright notice, that doesn't have any effect on the copyright. The uploader of the David Kennedy photograph has linked to a scan of both the front and back of the original photograph from 1968 (you can see a date stamp on the back), which shows no copyright markings. January (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The second question reflects how I found the image, during an image search that led me to a website using it. I knew the website or blog for proper pronunciation and its owner did not harbor any type of control over that image being there in the sense of copyright, meaning that the person did not own the image at all or in any sense of the word. So back to the point I'm making, what justification is there for that person to use the "non-free" image while we supposedly cannot? And also what do you call an image that you find by an image search on the website of someone you know is not the copyright holder. And if I can't use this file, then why don't you report the guy who posted the David Kennedy picture. The claims behind that don't seem credible enough to keep up. I tried using the same justification for most of my images on the commons published between the 1920s to 1977 and all of them got deleted. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- On your first point, see WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". I don't understand your second question, are you saying you think some of the files on Commons are unfree? January (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're telling me that other images are essentially to blame for the file not being able for use? If that is the case, then why are there from all accounts and judging by the number of files on the Commons, barely any that are free. And what would you license as an image that you randomly find on the internet, by someone who you can pretty much guess is not the copyright holder? What do you call it? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. A non-free image of a deceased subject is usually only permitted when there are no free images available, and in this instance we have 16 free images. January (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- So what you're telling me is, there's no possible way to keep this image up, under any circumstances? Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- The civil rights section already has two free images. This one would fail both WP:NFCC#1 and #8. January (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- While I would be willing to stop this debate on the consensus that we crop the aforementioned image, I would also argue that the image that was being used as the infobox picture still be used on the article as I have done. I understand the initial argument was due to my choice to add the image while maintaining that it was not replaceable, but I do believe that it can be used somewhere else on the article, particularly in the section detailing her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Informant16 —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: January already uploaded a Free 1964 image of Mrs King here from the Library of Congress. So, this image is replacable. Secondly, this free picture is better since she is looking at the camera. As an aside, the uploader has many non-free images for a certain person's article but perhaps 1 or 2 is better. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.