Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:22, 14 May 2022

August 21

File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnonEMouse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

While this is clearly a photo of historical interest (as tied to the failure of Hart's presidential campaign), there is no significant discussion tied to the visual of the picture that otherwise cannot be explained by words - it is a shot of Hart and Rice on a dock, Rice sitting on his lap, him wearing the Monkey Business shirt. It is the fact this photo came up and existed that is the issue, but we don't need to see this photo to understand that. Thus, this fails NFCC#8 (and technically NFCC#1 on both Hart and Rice's pages since both are still alive) MASEM (t) 16:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem's nomination for deletion follows the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Republication_of_photos

I concur with his request for deletion. The photo did not cause the suspension of Hart's 1988 presidential campaign in May 1987, nor prevent him from resuming that campaign in December 1987, which was the reason cited for its importance. Furthermore, the photo was first published by the National Enquirer without the permission of copyright holder Donna Rice-Hughes. Therefore, in addition to potentially violating copyright laws, and WP's rules related thereto, publication of this photo violates WP policy for Biographies of Living Persons BLP presumption in favor of privacy and avoiding prolonging victimization. Leaking the photo was intended to demonstrate that Hart was a womanizer, and according to the National Enquirer's story, asked Rice to marry him, and that Rice was some kind of bimbo, homewrecker, etc. That story was false. Since it was improper for the Enquirer to have published the photo then, and both Hart and Rice are now still alive, it is improper for WP to continue to republish the photo under privacy policy. Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Has the NE been sued about the copyright issue? With what result? If the NE copyright was held valid, or was not contested, we can not assume Rice-Hughes is the valid copyright holder, alas, and thus the prior rationale for use would hold as still valid. Checking news and web articles - I find no such problem with copyright. specifically calls it just an "AP File Photo". "Armandt was even more deeply involved. She confessed that she had been on the trip to Bimini, too. And she made some money selling the tabloids pictures of Rice and Hart together. " which does not comport with a claim Rice holds copyright - the copyright belongs to the person (or animal, per news this year) taking the picture. Collect (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To comment, I am not considering the copyrighted nature (beyond that it is something under someone's copyright) in this deletion. There is case law that a third-party that republishes material that was stolen by someone else can still use a fair use defense to protect themselves from copyright violations, the legal act of the original copyright stealing done by a different party. The fair use requirements still must be met (the case I found found that the third-party violated several of the four fair use considerations), but our use, being an educational source and far from any issues associated with defamation that the photo brought, would be easily within fair use. I stand on my deletion aspect that NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 are not met. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post, copyright was claimed by the National Enquirer/Getty Images:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/22/how-gary-harts-downfall-didnt-really-change-american-politics-all-that-much/ The Miami Herald has a long history of contested reporting regarding stories about Gary Hart. Per the Miami Herald, the photo was not taken by an AP photographer, but someone was trying to sell the photo: http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html The photographer doesn't always own the copyright, not when someone else bought the camera, film, and paid for the processing. The fact that Rice has the negatives, proves she has the copyright. The National Enquirer is not known for scrupulous business practices and is the kind of tabloid that would publish photos without a valid copyright if it could sell more papers. See related discussion on the policy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume anything about the copyright. A RS Richard Ben Cramer, a Pulitizer prize winning journalist. researched the matter and determined the copyright was Rice's as published in what is considered THE authority on the 1988 presidential campaign, and voted one of the top 100 books of the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Sounds like "original research" on your part - owning negatives is not ownership of copyright - the Miami Herald identified the photo in 2014 as being AP file photo .. .. and it is generally considered a "reliable source" even if you find it not to be one. Your note that the photo per WaPo is from "National Enquirer/Getty Images" does not have much bearing - "Getty Images" is a "stock photo company" which sells various usage rights - but does not always in itself own copyrights, but can act as an agent as well . As for the photographer not owning the copyright - that would require an assertion that it was done by a person on a "work for hire" basis. Otherwise - the photographer is the owner, not the "owner of the camera." Your unc cite is noice - but says absolutely nothing about copyright at all. And absent an actual source for your claims of copyright ownership, and your claim that Getty Images, the NE and MH are somehow colluding to attack Hart - that is not a reason for deletion of the image. Again - your claims that Rice "owns" the photo is woefully lacking in sourcing. After ec above - Checking out all that Cramer says I found only this which does not say Rice owns the copyright - only that she told people she "lent" the photo to Armandt. And that is what Cramer actually says. He did no "research" on the copyright, and clearly is relaying what Rice said to him. BTW, I can not find any authoritative reliable source calling Cramer's book "one of the top 100 books in the 20th century". It is in the top 22,000 list on Amazon for sales. Collect (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Cramer made very clear that the copyright for the photo had been claimed by the National Enquirer, and not the AP. The clear reading of his words is that the “picture”, the intellectual work was “her property” and that the copyright rightfully belonged to Rice. The “photo” had been lent, but Rice's rights to the “picture” remained hers. This story has been documented by Cramer and others, including ABC news.

Possessing the negatives is proof of the copyright claim if it were to be considered a work for hire. Having the photos proves nothing. When you ask a friend to take your picture with your camera, and film, you pay for the developing, the friend does not hold the copyright. When a person agrees to take the photo without a fee, and then returns the camera, the minimal effort, a gift, would not confer a copyright for having pushed the button without a formal agreement. This is nonsense. In any event, the burden at WP rests on those wishing to keep the photo file. Finding a third claimant for the copyright would only demonstrate that something here is amiss.

The problem with the Herald's reliability with regard to Hart came from the New York Times, considered a paper of record, and its executive editor: “I think that in the end the decision made by the paper's editors will hurt the Herald, the public vision of the press and the way we in journalism see ourselves and our purpose in life. There are two journalistic issues in the Hart matter. One is whether the story about Hart and his visitor should have been printed. I think the answer is yes,...but not as The Miami Herald printed it. Hurriedly against a deadline, without giving Hart a full chance to explain himself, without finding out more about the woman or giving her an opportunity to tell her story, without discovering exactly what the relationship was. A rushed, breathless job to catch the second edition. (A.M. Rosenthal, Sneaky Snooping? Stakeout Of Hart, Rushing Story Were Wrong . . . New York Times May 8, 1987) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-05-08/news/0130010073_1_masquerade-herald-giving-hart Video of Rosenthal here: http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112535885_003.do

Furthermore, Hart, Rice and Broadhurtst all denied the story. Hart alleged that the Herald reporters had been hiding in his bushes and peeking in his windows. It also became apparent that the Herald never monitored Hart's back door. They noted people leaving by the front door repeatedly without having seen them arrive. At one point only one person, McGee, was watching the house that night, and couldn't see both doors. Never-the-less, the Herald wrote that Rice had spent the night at Hart's D.C. Townhouse. When the shoddy surveillance became apparent, (Ted Koppel grilled Fiedler on this point on Nightline), rather than retract the story, they claimed it didn't matter because Hart shouldn't have been associating with Rice. (This is in Cramer's book...) The Herald never corrected the story. It is not surprising that they also credited the photo to the A.P. instead of the Enquirer. Without the Herald's contested story, there would not have been a market for the Enquirer to publish the “borrowed” photo.

Cramer's obituary from the New York Times: “Richard Ben Cramer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and the author of “What It Takes,” a prodigious account of the 1988 presidential election that has been widely hailed as among the finest books about American politics ever written, died on Monday night in Baltimore. He was 62.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/politics/richard-ben-cramer-dies-at-62-chronicled-presidential-politics.html?_r=0

From the Washington Post: “In 2010, Ben Smith wrote an article calling it, rightly, the "The book that defined modern campaign reporting." The New York Times, which had initially panned "What It Takes," recently named it “the last truly great campaign book.” NBC's "First Read" wrote today that "we believe there’s just one book every aspiring political journalist and operative ought to read if they want to know whether or not they are serious about this profession: it is 'What It Takes.'" “ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/08/remembering-and-honoring-richard-ben-cramer/

From Politico: “It’s insufficient to say that Cramer’s 1,047-page tour de force on the 1988 presidential race is the best book ever written about a campaign. It is that.” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/richard-ben-cramers-masterpiece-85880.html

A NYU panel voted it #58 in its list of The Top 100 Works of Journalism In The United State In the 20th Century: http://journalism.nyu.edu/century/

If you haven't head Cramer's “What It Takes” you don't know, the facts of the 1988 presidential campaign. (Funny, but it is not cited on Hart's WP page.) Cramer was not kind to the Herald's gang, whom he referred to as the Miamis. He referred to McGee as a “hit man”. He also noted that “the Miami commandos hadn't read Hart's invitation to tail him before they set out to search-and-destroy”. (Cramer, pg. 447). Which is contrary to what they published in their first story about Hart and Rice, but what they wrote in their "how it happened" account. They would wait 22 years, and after Cramer died, to contest that point. Lastly, there is the fact that the The Miami Herald's publisher in 1987, Dick Capen, was a staunch Republican, whom Bush appointed ambassador to Spain in 1992: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=557583&ticker=CCL:LN Thus, the Miami Herald is not a RS for anything related to Gary Hart or Donna Rice. Good luck trying to find another source that the photo was taken by an AP photographer... Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(od) "The Herald's publisher was a staunch Republican" ergo the Herald can not publish a photo and the whole Rice affair was concocted by that unreliable paper - which has twenty Pulitzer Prizes to its credit? Sorry -- that is a very weak argument for deletion. And Cramer does not assert that "Rice owns the copyright" at all (I searched his entire book for anything remotely near that claim, by the way). If so, then why is Getty Images the agent for the image? Rice should sue Getty if your assertion is correct, at which point I would support deletion here. Collect (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

strawman which doesn't address what Cramer wrote, (copyright is property) nor addresses WP policy considerations. The Herald didn't bother to nominate its stakeout of Hart's townhouse for a Pulitzer. It knew better. "Tom Fiedler would tell me what he had heard from higher-ups at the Herald that year-that a disgusted Rosenthal had made it clear to them that if the Herald so much as nominated its Hart story for a Pulitzer Prize, he would use his influence to block the paper from receiving any Pulitzers at all." Matt Bai, "All The Truth Is Out!" (pg. 175) Bai also noted that after reading Rosenthal's editorial Fiedler realized he would not be able get hired at the New York Times, which he wanted. (pg. 178). Donna Rice isn't obligated to sue anyone. We are on notice of competing claims to the copyright. If you want the photo to stay on WP, you need to explain why it should stay.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR Why does it matter who owns the copyright? The press agencies often are (incorrectly) credited as the copyright holder even if they are really just the source of the photo. (Similarly, Misplaced Pages and Facebook are often incorrectly credited in the same way.) The question is whether the reader's understanding of the topic requires the presence of this photo. --B (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is something that changes if this is truth a Getty Images or the like, in that NFCC#2 now becomes an issue, as we have to have commercial respect, so the image must be the subject of discussion, and not just an artifact of the failed campaign. But there are other reasons to delete above and beyond this. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that we are on notice of competing claims to the copyright, which does happen in tabloid journalism. (It is possible that Rice-Hughes sold/assigned her rights to the photo sometime in the past 20 years...) WP should avoid going down this path. Even if republishing the photo is legal, WP should have higher standards than this. In addition is the matter of BLP and privacy presumption.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages - do you have any cite for your assertions - or are you using surmise only? Again - I make no comment at all about the content of the image or its use, only about the assertion that the "copyright holder" wishes the image not be distributed according to you. As Getty Images still offers it for use under license, I suggest the onus is on you for proof of your seeming surmise. Collect (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The policy problem with keeping the photo is why is it on WP? As I have noted on the policy discussion, the photo did not cause Hart to suspend his presidential campaign in 1988. It was only published weeks after that. It did not cause him to stop leading in the national polls when it was published, nor did it prevent him from returning to the campaign in December and again leading in the national polls, and in Iowa. Matt Bai has written a book, "All The Truth Is Out!" about how Donna Rice, and the photo, have become collectively misremembered. By republishing it, WP is not using the photo educationally. If anything, WP is promoting disinformation. Rice is on record as not having wanted this photo published, and it is on her WP page. So there are BLP issues as well beyond the copyright issues. She was a former Miss South Carolina, had bit TV acting roles, and was a model. When the scandal broke, her modeling photos were splashed everywhere well before this photo was published on the front cover of the National Enquirer. If we want to highlight her modeling career or the first pictures of Rice most Americans saw in May 1987, it was not this photo.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

states clearly: Hulton Archive. This places ownership apparently under UK law perhaps. I hope this clarifies the claims made about copyright ownership. Collect (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Finding more claimants to the copyright in more jurisdictions makes using the photo on WP even more problematic. You need to address the WP policy considerations regarding why WP should republish the photo as a fair use, and also address the privacy presumption of BLP which favors not republishing.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not "finding more claimants" - it is finding precisely what Getty Images states - which is far different from the implication you make. Again - I have zero to say on "fair use" but feel it proper to show that Rice has not apparently asserted copyright in any proper venue - and it is not up to us to take your surmise as a reliable source on that topic. If she does not have copyright, and has not legally asserted ownership of copyright (possessing a negative, by the way, is irrelevant to that topic) then the long discourse using that as a reason for deletion become non-utile here. Collect (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Getty Images states its claim, as did the National Enquirer. Donna Rice stated hers to Cramer and ABC's Barbara Walters and it was published. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Rice-Hughes abandoned, or even sold, her rights to the picture, WP has both fair use and privacy policy reasons to consider here. Is WP's use of the photo a fair use legally, and is there a moral justification for republishing a picture that the subjects of the photo had never intended for publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights WP has a privacy policy in BLP with a presumption of privacy. Your policy is to presume that tabloid photos should appear on WP bio pages. That is not WP's policy, and, since you are the only one posting to keep the photo on WP, you need to provide a justification as to why this photo should be republished on WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:McMurry University Block Logo 2.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

File:McMurry University Block Logo 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Renfro.timothy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned free image; File:McMurry University logo.png has replaced this file in all articles. Corkythehornetfan 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.