Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 15

File:Nineveh Eagles.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Barcyy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non free team photo being used decoratively. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sandstein (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file description page claims the file is to be used "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". Not only is 2017 Congressional baseball shooting not a biographical article, but there is no reliably-sourced prose in the article about Mr. Hodgkinson that requires or benefits from using copyrighted material to understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as uploader. It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures, as this perpetator of a high-profile shooting is. 2017 Congressional baseball shooting is (currently) his biographical article; he is likely to get a separate article in time.His appearance (e.g., his age, skin color) provides potentially significant context for the shooting.  Sandstein  16:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "Normal practice[s]" are those upon which we've agreed to and codified into policies, guidelines, and manuals; I've seen nothing that addresses using copyrighted material in contravention of our other operating procedures when the article discusses a "significant public figure". There is no reliably-sourced prose in the article for which Mr. Hodgkinson's personal appearance is pertinent; even if there were, there would need to be some indescribable aspect of his visage (or clothing worn, hairstyle, etc.) to warrant using somebody else's copyrighted material to illustrate it so that our readers could understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter. We don't normally illustrate our biographies because we want to discuss the specific hairstyle, etc., of our subjects, but because an image is an integral part of any biography.  Sandstein  22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your description on the file's page are "The person is dead. Free photographs of him are unlikely to exist as he was no public figure." That contradicts your current argument. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC) PS- there is almost no chance he gets his own article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• He wasn't a public figure before his death. He is now.  Sandstein  22:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a neutral image of the man, there is no chance of getting another free one now that he is dead, and per Sandstein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I addressed neither this file's "neutrality" nor its replaceability as reasons for its deletion. I said that its non-free-use rationale was incorrect, and that there is no articular need for it (and therefore no policy-based allowance for its use). — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously, stop WP:BLUDGEONing. You don't need to reply to every person in this discussion. It is annoying and disruptive. Assume the closer isn't a mindless drone and can handle this without your constant input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace. I see this image is also available via AP, which has a strong commercial interest[1] UUI#7 applies, so replace it with a mugshot[2] - I'm never entirely sure whether there's a federal lack of copyright on mugshots, but a mugshot is going to have less commercial impact and enough relevant context to improve the claim of fair use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, whether the mugshot to which you linked is public domain or not depends on whether St. Clair County or Illinois retains such copyrights. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information about those entities' copyrights either way. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well overall the whole thing makes me... uncomfortable. I am more comfortable with the mugshot. It was probably not produced by the Illinois state government (probably a local government), but it was provided by them to the press, and it looks like for ownership purposes, under state law, this effectively defaults ownership to the state over the IP rights of the local government: "[a]ll records created or received by or under the authority of or coming into the custody, control, or possession of public officials of this State in the course of their public duties are the property of the State."([3]). Presumably they would be similarly willing to provide the image to most legitimate news organizations, and so no one organization can probably claim a strong case of commercial opportunity lost by someone else using it. So in a nutshell, if were going to use a non-free image, we should use this one or another in a similar legal situation. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove- apparently there is a mugshot, use that. The uploader admits this is a non-free image. In this picture he is wearing sunglasses too.. that is not overly useful for identification purposes. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  At this time, we're uncertain about the copyright status of St. Clair County or Illinoisan mugshots, meaning we're left to presume they are equally non-free content. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No way I would accept a mugshot. That is a NPOV issue, since that isn't the mugshot from this crime and that puts him in the worst possible light. The image must be neutral. His acts already speak for themselves. Using a mugshot would confuse the reader. "Was he arrested for this, then the cops shot him?" Bad all the way around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAPTION? Also, confusing the reader is not a valid rationale for fair use as far as I'm aware. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it as a rationale for this image, I'm saying I would oppose a mugshot regardless because it was misleading. Whatever image we use, it should be neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.  Sandstein  22:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well any image touched by the state government is presumed to by copyright per above. And an image distributed by the state government is fairly presumed to be a better fair use candidate than this one. So... are we done here? You don't get to pick and choose your fair use images. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a silly thing to even say. Of course we choose which image we use under fair use. We choose the image based on quality, on neutrality, circumstances of copyright, etc. So if we have to choose between two copyrighted images with similar copyright issues, we choose the one that best represents the person and isn't confusing, misleading or otherwise problematic. Virtually every time we use an image as Fair Use, there were other options and we simply chose the best of the available options. Since WP:NPOV and WP:BLP come into play, the plain jane photo is the logical choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't choose which image is most fairly usable, and one licensed to a state government is less commercially infringing that one that isn't. You are confusing image choice in an article (i.e., NPOV) with whether we have a valid fair use claim over another image with another more valid fair use claim. We can choose not to use that more valid fair use image in an article, but its existence means we have to take it or leave it. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - This picture doesn't add much value as the sunglasses obscure his face. I would strongly oppose a mugshot but feel we can do better here in a non free image. Has anyone reached out for permission requests? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now I agree that it is appropriate to use this image for now, due to the arguments above. I can't help feeling that the "there may be better non-free images" argument and the "send out permission requests" argument are putting the cart before the horse here. Wouldn't it make much more sense to find a better non-free image and then discuss it? Or send out permission requests and then discuss the results? We can always delete this image later if something better turns up. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radha Madhavam performance of Krishna Praba.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lujojoseph (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

derivative of non-free content (screen capture) FASTILY 19:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ailee performing on Fantastic Duo 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sara Jansson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not official YouTube account, possible license washing. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]