| Revision as of 22:05, 22 August 2015 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg: who owns the copyright? likely the photographer per US case← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:32, 22 August 2015 edit undoMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,188 edits →File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpgNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::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 ] 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. ] (]) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC) | ::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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:05, 22 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 22:32, 22 August 2015
| < August 20 | August 22 > |
|---|
August 21
File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg
- 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)
- 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)
File:McMurry University Block Logo 2.png
- 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)
