Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 November 24: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:53, 29 November 2011 editYoureallycan (talk \| contribs)12,095 edits →File:OccupyUCD3.jpg ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:11, 30 November 2011 edit undoYoureallycan (talk \| contribs)12,095 edits →File:OccupyUCD3.jpg Next edit →
Line 222:		Line 222:
	:*Your comment although well meant, has got nothing at all in it that is based in non free wikipedia policy or any wikipedia policy at all for that matter.] (]) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)		:*Your comment although well meant, has got nothing at all in it that is based in non free wikipedia policy or any wikipedia policy at all for that matter.] (]) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - most of the comments above seem to miss the difference between an '''historic moment''' and an '''historic image'''. Perhaps the moment will someday be judged "historic" - who knows? I'm personally kind of doubtful, as some college students getting a dose of pepper spray seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and I would be surprised to learn any reliable source is still talking about it now that the news cycle has moved on. However, to be a historic image, there needs to be notable commentary on the image itself. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Even assertions and links stating the work has been widely parodied seem to show that it was some other image by some other photographer that was used as a basis for parodies. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' - most of the comments above seem to miss the difference between an '''historic moment''' and an '''historic image'''. Perhaps the moment will someday be judged "historic" - who knows? I'm personally kind of doubtful, as some college students getting a dose of pepper spray seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and I would be surprised to learn any reliable source is still talking about it now that the news cycle has moved on. However, to be a historic image, there needs to be notable commentary on the image itself. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Even assertions and links stating the work has been widely parodied seem to show that it was some other image by some other photographer that was used as a basis for parodies. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	:*Agreed. You have only to search you-tube and Google pics to see ~~have~~ many many people have pictures and videos of this Occupy protect that they own and that they can freely donate. This non free pictures continuing existence in the article is detrimental to one being offered for use. ] (]) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)		:*Agreed. You have only to search you-tube and Google pics to see how many many people have pictures and videos of this Occupy protect that they own and that they can freely donate. This non free pictures continuing existence in the article is detrimental to one of those thousands of pictures being offered for use with a commons compatible licence . ] (]) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 02:11, 30 November 2011

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24

File:Public transport sialkot.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:SialkotAirport10.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Nasir Ali.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Seerat Study Centre Sialkot.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Upper Chenab Canal.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:SLM1.jpg

no source provided, uploader was prolific (c) violator; given the lack of source, suspect that this also is a copyright violation Skier Dude (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding File:SialkotRiksha.jpg File:Murray College Sialkot.jpg File:SMC Sialkot.jpg File:Sialkot MC Sialkot.jpg File:Slk Fort Ruines2.jpg File:Sialkot Golf Club.jpg File:PunjabAssemblyBuilding.jpg File:TownHallSialkot.jpg File:War Monument sialkot.jpg File:Saga Square.jpg File:Wazirabad Road.jpg File:Residential Area Sialkot.jpg File:WarMonument2.jpg for the same reason - note that exif data is aso very suspicious. Skier Dude (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Mohamed Haji (Ingiriis).jpg

Orphaned userphoto of inactive user. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Claude Aikins.jpg

On Commons, where deletion discussion is taking place (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claude Aikins.jpg); fair use doesn't appear to be likely. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PentUpSOHcover.gif

OR, claims to be cover for some undefined something... Skier Dude (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:John and Liev.jpg

orphaned user's iamge; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:StoryBW.JPG

orphaned, subject not ID'd Skier Dude (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr Gabe Veas.JPG

orphaned user image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Userdrumpler.jpg

orphaned user image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lamm2.JPG

OR drawing, no target article or encyc use stated Skier Dude (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Laura peace 200.jpg

OR drawing, no target article or encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Laureatezportrait.jpg

orphaned user pic; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Laureen.jpg

orphaned user image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lecomicjo4.png

OR, LQ, non-encyclopedic Skier Dude (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:LifeChurch block tag.jpg

orphaned church logo, no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lloyd Himself.JPG

orphaned user image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo preach-the-word-always.jpg

OR, apparently intended for user page, no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:N17210552 33495999 1469.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 10:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:N1910129 34515374 4554.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality vanity photo, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 10:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:N36902060 32519832 9237.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality, dim, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 10:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Gramicidins3d.png

Seems to be incorrect: Replaced by uploader by a new version. Leyo 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OccupyUCD3.jpg

Photo is taken directly from a newspaper website, violates WP:NFCC#2 by replacing the market role of a current events photo. I'm not really seeing any explanation of why this image is "historic". Kelly 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep (at a reduced resolution). If properly reduced in size to say 200*300, hosting this image is acceptable under the NFCC policy. Regarding #2, nobody would buy this image at that thumb size to use in current events coverage. If people believe otherwise, please provide a plausible explanation of why you think so, perhaps an example of a news site actually using such an image as part of their journalistic output. We are not sourcing this from an image agency either so it is not in violation of WP:NFC#UUI point 7 - the declared source of Wayne Tilcock/Enterprise is indeed the stated owner of the copyright and the end user. They clearly intend to use it at the high resolution as part of that image gallery, whereas we will be using a single image at low resolution. That's not a competing interest, if anything it's complementary given backlinks. Regarding the claimed purpose of use, while not phrased particularly well currently, it's clear from the sourced statements in the article Occupy UC Davis where it's being used, why this image is already considered to be an important/historic event ("Bull Connor Moment" etc), and it also contains critical commentary of the incident which is not replaced by text alone ("pepper-hose" etc). If it's deleted, the ability for the reader to both interpret those statements and appreciate the event's significance is going to be severely undermined. The NFCC is there not only to specify what cannot be used, it also exists to stop deletions of valid uses which would have that detrimental effect, ie, the NFCC exists "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia". All other NFCC conditions are also satisfied in a trivial manner, although as is being discussed, moving it further down to a more appropriate place in the article is probably warranted, but that's hardly a case for deletion. DCron (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If a reader can see the image here, what reason would they have to visit the newspaper website? And I'm not seeing any sourced commentary on this particular image, only on the event it depicts. So perhaps the event is historic but the photo itself is not. Can we simply provide a link to the image's source? Kelly 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it would larger over there (once this one is reduced), and they have a gallery too. That's because their purpose of use (providing timely news & images of the protest) is different to ours (providing justifiably illustrated encyclopedic content about the protests). I don't agree with your distinction between the image and the event - they are one and the same to me looking at the text & the image. If simply providing a link was OK, we wouldn't allow any non-free content would we? All of it can ultimately be replaced by links, can't it? DCron (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI clearly says that we do not take images from news agencies. I'm not understanding your point that stealing a lower-resolution version is OK. Kelly 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I already covered UUI - it's not an agency photo, it's been taken from the source, who is a staff photographer not a freelancer or re-distributor, and is properly described as such on the image page. If it was marked 'Getty Images' et al (and nobody reduces it in size), then yes there's a case we would then be undermining Getty's revenue stream (even though anyone who re-used it from here would be breaking the law anyway, because we are not advertising it for re-use but as justified nfcc). In this case, it's not an agency image, it's already being used in the place where it derives revenue. As for why it should be low resolution, it's because if that was done, there'd be no plausible conflict here regarding the remaining aspect of NFCC#2, namely attracting readership, because the newspaper's use of high res photos in a gallery to do that is not challenged or compromised by our use of a single low res photo. As a final point, please do not characterise other people's good faith uploads as an attempt at theft, that can easily be taken as disrespectful. We can politely disagree on the finer points of NFCC, without impugning people's motives. DCron (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - are you claiming that the photo was not taken by a commercial news organization? What is the essential difference between this news corp and any other? Kelly 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

UUI7 refers to an "agency", not an "organisation" (AP & Getty etc are agencies). The reason for that is because an agency's primary purpose is to re-distribute images/copy for profit, and thus they can be undermined by people copying their work before its been sold to as many takers as possible. What we have here though is not an agency, but a photographer who is working on the staff of this paper, who took the photo for this paper, who are already using it. Thus we cannot undermine their revenue from distribution, only by diverting readers from their existing article/gallery, which we do not when we properly follow the other criteria laid down in the NFCC. DCron (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be pretty fine legalistic hair-splitting. The terms of use of The Davis Enterprise make it clear they license their content to others (for instance, under "Intellectual Property", they refer to "licensors" more than once). Also, you're still conflating "historic image" with "historic event". We could use an image under fair use if the image itself were the subject of commentary, not the event it depicts. Otherwise WP:NFCC would allow to use non-free images for any historic event, which is clearly not the case. Can anyone provide any evidence that this particular photo by The Davis Enterprise has been the subject of widespread commentary in reliable sources? Kelly 23:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference between an agency and a newspaper is not exactly hair splitting, they're as different as well, the guy who trucks gas around the country, and the guy that pumps it. I would be amazed if it turned out that the reason that the UUI#7 clause focuses on agencies is just an oversight, and it was meant to cover all images sourced from newspapers. There's some fairly iconic images out there that are still the sole property of news organisations/staffers, how would we ever be able to use them given this blanket ban? And those T&C's just seem to be the standard waffle you get for any company's website, not just newspapers. I don't think they show anything germaine, it would be different if you had found a specific clause or section which instructs/directs people what to do if they want to buy their staff photos. Their "licensor" in this case is more than likely their staffer, not re-users. Permission can be obtained they say, but again, that's standard. And yes, I'm conflating the image with the event, because I really don't see the distinction here that you seem to. Sure, NFCC doesn't allow random photos to be used in any old historical article just because they're historical, but we are also not restricted to just using historic/iconic nfc in articles like the flag raising at Iwo Jima or the Napalm Girl. The relevant clause there is whether "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The article very clearly has commentary on what is _precisely_ being depicted by the photo which cuts to the heart of that purpose. Just because nobody discusses this particular image out of the 10s or more that must have been taken of the exact same incident, is not important. DCron (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - is there a reason this can't be replaced with a free image per WP:NFCC#1 instead of using a commercially-produced image from a news agency? I see people with cameras everywhere in this photo. Kelly 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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". That does not bar images that theoretically could be replaced, it only bars images where a "free equivalent is available" & obviously one cannot be "created" now, it has to come from an existing source. By all means, if someone makes one available that serves the same purpose, I'll vote delete, particularly because we could then use it at the highest resolution. DCron (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the Occupy UC Davis organizers for a free image? Kelly 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that these protests are not supposed to have organizers. DCron (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless we have scores of free images from these protests provided by the participants. Kelly 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Images that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"? DCron (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually they have an official website with contact information. Kelly 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd. That goes against what I'd heard about these things. Drop them a line then. DCron (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So a free image could be obtained? Kelly 23:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea, it depends on who you can contact and whether they accept Misplaced Pages's image licensing, which includes commercial re-use. I really wouldn't want to speculate on where these protestors sit on that particular fence. But NFCC#1 is clear, this only comes to play if it "is" available. The "could" part only applies to theoretical situations like you 'could' go and get a photo of a building or a person etc, it does not apply to this sort of situation where you are reliant on finding a released image, or persuading someone to release one. DCron (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, historic-- one of a kind image that has achieved substantial notoriety after spreading worldwide. For example, see "John Pike" meme for several thousand examples of derivative images based on this one image. The fact that there are 60,000+ parody versions of the image should suggest that yes, this image and precisely this image is historic. While there might be other similar pictures, this picture is the one being used as the primary source for the meme. (It's easy to imagine that the meme could wind up becoming notable enough to merit an article at some point in the future... or maybe not). Tangledorange (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I think trying to claim "historic" for a week-old event is a bit of a disconnect from reality. Also, this isn't an article on "the pepper-spray incident", it is an article on the Occupy UCDavis overall. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep at a reduced resolution. The photo has a much higher resolution than is required to document the event, but that's it. 1) There is not currently a free alternative, and it's far from obvious that there will be one. Of course everything that can be done to get one and has not been tried yet needs to be done. 2) As I said, the resolution must be reduced. But nothing needs to be cut off, as the entire surrounding scene is relevant for understanding the monstrosity of what is shown on the photo. 4)-7) Clear. 8) The photo is iconic for Occupy UC Davis and in particular for the police violence section. As it is also required to fully understand the third lead sentence, its placement in the lead is OK. 9) Clear. 10) Everything fine. And yes, it's a historic moment that will no doubt be remembered at UC Davis for decades to come unless it should get overshadowed by something even worse. Hans Adler 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Per Tarc. However, if the consensus is to keep the image, I would favor (1) a lower resolution and (2) a different placement in the article. I understand Hans's comment about the lead mentioning it, but it still draws too much attention to one aspect of the occupation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Non-free reduced version uploaded on 07:29, 26 November 2011. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. As much as I'd love to keep the image, there is just too much of an issue of infringing on the rights of the newspaper that owns it, and WP:LOWRES is unlikely to really fix that. And arguing WP:ITSHISTORIC for something that just happened is unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
And I ought to add that WP:ITSHISTORIC would be just as flawed an argument even if the event were clearly historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, not according to Misplaced Pages editors, but according to the repeated assertions of historical importance made by reliable secondary sources like journalist Katharine Q. Seelye of the NYT and professor Robert Thompson at Syracuse University. (web cite) According to Seelye, the image led to a national debate, and is extremely powerful because the use of pepper spray on protestors is rarely captured on film. Robert Thompson considers the image to be of significant interest as it represents a distinct period of history with a particular feature: "...the public rarely witnesses such scenes, and that was one of the reasons that the video from Davis was so powerful. It captured many elements — seated protesters being doused with a bright orange spray by campus officers, whose body language appeared surprisingly casual..."What makes this so oddly interesting is that those officers don’t look like the Chicago police in 1968,” said Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University. They are so casual, he said, "it's as if they were called because someone was sunbathing naked on the quad." All of these elements, Mr. Thompson said, added up to a riveting image. "All of these contradictions are jammed into that little video, where we have this casual disenfranchising of rights, but it is a new era, where pepper spray is used as opposed to batons and guns." The assertions made by Seelye and Thompson are supported by many additional sources. In other words, we have multiple, non-trivial mentions of the image in notable, mainstream sources and its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article on Occupy UC Davis because the image and its historical significance are the object of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - false rationale - to, "Illustrate historical moment in the history of UC Davis and the Occupy movement." - its clearly a picture of a policeman pepper spraying some demonstrators and the rationale clearly states a historical moment and yet the picture is being used in the lede to represent the whole protest. Commons compatible pictures are also clearly available, there were hundreds of people with phone-cams and cameras at these protests that occurred over many days there and the false usage of this non free picture in the lede to represent the whole event is restricting efforts to find one. If the rationale is tightened to specifically portray a discussed event in the protest and used directly to portray that I would reconsider. Picture is also still unnecessarily large for non free usage even if the rationale was reasonable. Youreallycan (talk) previously was Off2riorob - 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The sources have said that this is a historical moment, and we go with what the sources say. 2) There is no evidence that there are any commons compatible images available, and if there are, you will need to show us a link. 3) The image is not unnecessarily large for free usage as it was reduced from 702 x 500 to 351 x 250, which is the visual limit for seeing detail at the average screen resolution of 1526 x 967. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

So if the sources say if is a historical moment - and you want to use this picture you should rewrite the rationale and move the picture to the content about that specific claimed historic moment, and I don't need to prove there are commons compatible pictures - that is assumed. The picture size also - if you want to use a picture that is owned by someone and a sale-able item that your are basically reducing its value by claiming you can use it as a non free image you rather get your rationale tight and keep the image size as small as possible - there is no minor detail in this non free picture that requires pixal size - as long as you can see the pepper spray and the people sitting there its big enough - I would personally cut the picture size in half again and specifically focus the non free rationale on the notable historic moment and use the picture in the relevant section in the article to add detail to the specific content about that moment if I was wanting to keep it under a claim of non free usage under En guidelines - without those caveats, it's a delete. Youreallycan (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The current rationale is fine and the sources have made it clear that this is a unique historic image directly associated with Occupy UC Davis. In fact, the UCD protest has become known as a result of this image, and the sources say that. It is not assumed that there are commons compatible images available, and previous discussion on this subject has addressed this point. It sounds like you are adding comments without reading the discussion. The image has already been reduced from 702 x 500 to 351 x 250. If it is reduced again per your suggestion, it would appear at 177 x 126, a size that is so small, the demonstrators become unidentifiable, and it appears that the police officer is spraying a pile of wet clothes, not people. Similarly, if we were to take your suggestion and apply it to File:Kent_State_massacre.jpg, the expression of shock on the lady's face would become unidentifiable and the body would appear like a piece of driftwood rather than a human being. Therefore, I strongly object to your proposal, which amounts to an attempt to dehumanize the subjects of the photograph and lessen its impact by misusing Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines as a weapon of censorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to be able to identify the protesters to see that people are being sprayed with pepper spray - and that is one of the reasons the non free use rational is so false and needs tightening. Your worries about dehumanizing of the protesters and your worries that the dramatic affects of the picture will be diminished clearly is not something that as wikipedia editors we should have any opinion about. It's also of no importance at all as regards your desire to use a non free picture against the aims and ambitions of the project for commons comparable pictures free to use for educational purposes. I again state - this picture is of a policeman pepper spraying a group of protesters on the floor - the current usage of this picture to represent the whole protest in the lede is false and the current non free usage rationale is also false. If you assert your non free usage is due to the historic expression of shock on the lady's face while being pepper sprayed then we can look at that but currently the non free use rationale is just false. Youreallycan (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal to shrink the image to 177 x 126 would make it impossible to identify and understand the critical commentary about the image, and is an attempt to misuse our policies and guidelines. We need to see what the photographer intended and to observe who is doing what to whom and to analyze critical commentary on the image and decide if it is in parity with what we see. These are not "worries", this is how we use images appropriately. Additionally, there is no evidence that there are any free images for use. You need to stop claiming that there "might be". If you have evidence that there is a free replacement, provide it, otherwise we will assume that there isn't one. We don't automatically assume that one exists when we have already looked and can't find one. There is nothing false about the stated historical importance of this image as the rationale is directly supported by the sources which assert its historical significance, including The New York Times, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Washington Post, as well as dozens of other notable, reliable sources that assert historical significance. Therefore, the non-free rationale is true and fully supported. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment/question/suggestion: The use in this article of a (conventionally) copyright image of this policeman spraying protesters seems fair. But which image? Viriditas says above: The current rationale is fine and the sources have made it clear that this is a unique historic image directly associated with Occupy UC Davis. In fact, the UCD protest has become known as a result of this image, and the sources say that. It is not assumed that there are commons compatible images available, and previous discussion on this subject has addressed this point. This surprises me. The "mental image" of this particular cop calmly spraying protesters with a bright orange fluid is a strong one. But which actual image should one use? Take a look at this blackly humorous Tumblr. The image that's overwhelmingly popular there is not this one but instead one of the cop walking toward the camera, sole of one shoe raised, one arm holding the spray to his side. Would that image (of course presumably copyright too) not be better here? -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Photographer Wayne Tilcock of the The Davis Enterprise released several images through the Enterprise, many of which were later carried by wire services such as AP. Concurrently, amateur and citizen journalists on the scene also released copyrighted photographs, two of which were used as photoshop memes. One popular version was taken by Louise Macabitas. Thomas Fowler recorded cell phone video of the incident and published it on YouTube. Some media outlets appear to have attributed Macabitas' work to Fowler. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  - Thank you, Viriditas: the photographer's name (which I hadn't known) is wonderfully easy to google. See this article, from which I quote: In just three days, the photo has become one of the year's largest memes, according to Brad Kim, editor of the Know Your Meme blog, which has tracked more than 1,000 versions of the photo. / Why this photo, out of the many posted online of the event? The article answers this (or tries to), and it ends: glad her photo has helped tell the story of what happened that day, even if it's spread that tale to a far wider audience than she expected. / "I just wanted my friends to see what was really going on. I had no idea it would spread across the whole Internet, but I'm glad it has." ¶ The photographer (or "author", in copyrightspeak) is "Louise Macabitas, 22, a psychobiology major at UC Davis". I think it's likely that if there's one "iconic" image, it's this one. (NB I'm a newcomer to this; I claim no expertise.) And the photographer seems happy for it to be disseminated. Good. A bit more (inexpert?) googling by me doesn't bring her website or any way to contact her, but doesn't somebody here know somebody who knows her and can ask her please please please (and please write to OTRS)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Keep (at its reduced resolution). Historic photo; encyclopaedic requirement; current event. Reasons amply stated above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Keep (at its reduced resolution). The video of this incident has become the iconic symbol of the Occupy movement. For WP to omit covering the incident in visual form would look to contain a strong WP:POV element. The person who took that video, who by the way was not part of the movement or the protest at the time, has been identified in the media. Before removing this content, I suggest someone should reach out and try to contact this individual. Trackinfo (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep (at reduced resolution) - arguments that "we can't tell this is historic after 1 week" seem completely specious to me. This picture is essential to the article and indeed iconic. The 351x250 resolution seems appropriate. Bosmon (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This image seems iconic and historic. If there is any doubt that this image is not iconic, take a look at the internet meme that has sprung up around this image! SaltyBoatr 15:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see in WP:NFCC, "If the image is meme'd by a bunch of /b/-tards" is not a valid criteria to use a copyrighted image in the project. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion. The /b/-tards notwithstanding, I'd like to make a suggestion to the editors arguing for keep. (Believe me, on content grounds, I'd like to keep it too, but we are dealing here with non-free content.) Take a look at WP:ITSHISTORIC, and then look at the page about Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. If there is sufficient sourcing for a page about the photograph itself, the image can surely be kept for that page. I'm not saying that there is sufficient sourcing, but perhaps there might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, but the current page is acceptable for the moment. However, I think a separate page is needed per your suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep for now, but actively pursue attempts to obtain a free-licensed image of the same incident from one of the many other people with cameras who were present. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is actually more of a reason to delete. If you read the policy and guidelines and foundations statement about non free picture usage you will find that, keep until we find a commons licensed one is not written in, or supported in, any wikipedia guideline.Youreallycan (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep This is a current event that is both news worthy and potentially historic in nature. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment although well meant, has got nothing at all in it that is based in non free wikipedia policy or any wikipedia policy at all for that matter.Youreallycan (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - most of the comments above seem to miss the difference between an historic moment and an historic image. Perhaps the moment will someday be judged "historic" - who knows? I'm personally kind of doubtful, as some college students getting a dose of pepper spray seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and I would be surprised to learn any reliable source is still talking about it now that the news cycle has moved on. However, to be a historic image, there needs to be notable commentary on the image itself. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Even assertions and links stating the work has been widely parodied seem to show that it was some other image by some other photographer that was used as a basis for parodies. Kelly 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You have only to search you-tube and Google pics to see how many many people have pictures and videos of this Occupy protect that they own and that they can freely donate. This non free pictures continuing existence in the article is detrimental to one of those thousands of pictures being offered for use with a commons compatible licence . Youreallycan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)