- File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- There were 3 votes to keep the image:
- The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
- The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
- The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
- There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. --Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—S Marshall /Cont 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse outcome as accurate reflection of the deletion debate, more or less in line with SMarshall. The debate wasn't very helpful, but I think this falls on the acceptable nonfree use side because the image quality is so low and because much better images are available through Getty Images, indicating market value is essentially nil. Also agree that discussion elsewhere would be more helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse close was within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- XfD, and especially FfD, is not a votecount. The reasons supporting keep were not based in what our policies require, while those supporting delete were. So the result should have been delete. ÷seresin 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Theoretical, qualified overturn and comment. This is a major hole in our policy. Theoretically we require the original source--i.e., the copyright holder--while practically we have generally accepted the most immediate source--the place where the uploader got the image--even when that source is pretty clearly violating copyright itself. We are actually violating two policies when we do this: we are linking to a copyright-violator, which is specifically banned at WP:External links, and we are also not attributing the image to its proper owner, which is both ethically and legally what we should do. We should do this also because it is in keeping with our general respect for attribution; one of the great ironies of this site is that we are much more careful about attribution for free content then we are for non-free content! However, I recognize that the problem goes way beyond this one image, and I'm not certain that a single debate over a single image is the way to get us to shape up, when there are surely thousands of images affected in exactly the same way (but the kicking and screaming if those images are deleted en masse will be huge, I'm sure). I don't know the way forward here, I confess, only that the status quo is untenable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Theoretically we require the original source". Since when? WP:CITE#IMAGE explicitly says to supply the source where the uploader found it, not the original source. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that Chick Bowen has largely covered my point of view. I think the correct close was to delete the image , though I am aware that there is not unanimity in the interpretation of how to close such debates. Most, if not all, of the sources I have seen this image at are rather dodgy on copyright—sourcing from them is somewhat dubious. In the case of this image, I believe that it can be sourced (libraries are the key), and is probably (but not definitely) free due to lack of copyright renewal. If sourced then perhaps the new (free) version will be not such poor quality ?. The largest problem here, and with many images, is that the standards have changed. On this point I note that my first upload here File:1829.jpg was dodgy on many counts and yet was uploaded in the belief that it met the criteria of the time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse, could have gone either way; the close seems reasonable given the arguments that have been raised though. Also, DRV is not FFD part two. Lankiveil 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
- Endorse - I am not seeing the issue with the admin's closure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse per S Marshall, mostly. There is, at best, no consensus in the discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have raised what I see as the principal issue here at WP:AN. As I say there, I don't think it is appropriate to determine it just in relation to this image, and I am not trying to canvas this debate--in fact I think this close should probably be endorsed for now, even though I am hoping we come to our senses and delete all such images in the future (after, of course, giving adequate time to determine authorship). Chick Bowen 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse keep. Based on the !votes from Tony and Jmundo in the original discussion, which in my view identify the key policy issue re the NFCC, and note that this use is absolutely on-track with our accepted community standards. I also think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's analysis above here of the NFCC#2 issue is accurate and decisive. Regarding Peripitus's !vote in the original discussion, his comment seems more directed to whether the image was free or not, rather than whether it was legitimate fair use or not. Closer was therefore correct to go with the weighted balance of the arguments presented. Jheald (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "identify the key policy issue re the NFCC"? What do you think about articles using non-free content copied from copyrights lenient websites (that's what the whole issue is about)? --Damiens.rf 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's irrelevant. The issue is whether we (and our downstream reusers) can reasonably use the image legally, not its use on some other completely different website. Giving this immediate source is useful, because it establishes that the image has already been somewhat widely available.
Policy in this area is set at WT:NFC. The issue of sourcing was discussed at length there in March, here and here, as a result of which the words if possible were re-inserted into policy, to establish that, while deeper sourcing information is a nice thing to have, it is not a requirement. Standing advice to XfD closers is to down-weight contributions which are not based on a correct understanding of policy. That appears to be the case with your intervention here. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. Closer apparently did not give due weight to policy and may have been misled by the bold bad advice in Misplaced Pages:deletion guidelines for administrators. (No "in doubt, don't delete" provision can or should apply at FFD or PUF when dealing with non-free content, as we shall see). Misplaced Pages:non-free content criteria, the policy which ultimately governs our use of non-free content, states that non-free material may only be used when "properly attributed or cited to its original source or author". Nitpickers may argue that this is in relation to non-free text, but if there's a reasonable argument for images being credited in a less strict fashion I don't see it. One need only compare the disparity in the way we treat freely licensed text contributions (difficult to see who wrote what with multiple clicks) and the freely licensed image contributions (attribution prominently displayed just one click away) to see that it can never have been the intention that we should not credit the copyright owner and/or author of non-free images, whatever the badly worded text here may currently seem to say. NFCC closes by reminding us that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", so reversing the burden of proof which DGFA presumes to exist ("if in doubt, do delete"). While there must of course be an element of subjectivity when considering the ten non-free content criteria, and especially points 1 and 8, there can be none when it comes to providing a source since the policy is very clear indeed in the only statement it makes as to what constitutes a source. The only reasonable outcome here was and is to delete the file in question as it fails to meet the requirements of the non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Images are not text. You can't quote the policy about text and then say it applies to images because you don't like the fact that the actual policy for images, specifically adopted (as noted above) after extensive discussion and consideration, says the opposite. You might like to reflect on the thought that what adds value to a quote, making it non-replaceable (rather than replacing it with our own paraphrase), is the authority of the person to whom the quote can be attributed. There are other things which make images non-replaceable. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse This DRV is not the best place to have a meta-discussion about our Non-free policy. I do not see an issue with the close. BTW, the description page does include two sources as require by policy: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" )
- Im also asking Damiens to stop nominating the image as speedy delete, and wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'm reverting one more time, but Im not starting an edit war over this, so maybe someone should watchlist the file. --Jmundo (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is, or even whether one exists? We don't need permission to use it. If we knew that there was a copyright holder, and who it was, it would be wrong not to acknowledge them; but not being able to do so is no reason to delete the image! -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- "It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is" - If you don't know who the copyright holder is, how can you tell your use is not replacing the original market role for the material? I agree that "fair use" sounds a lot like "blanket permission for ignoring copyrights", but in reality, they are not the same. --Damiens.rf 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Surely you jest. How can this low-quality image scanned from an old newspaper possibly damage the owner, assuming there is one? The "original market role" was to appear in the daily paper; it did so, and fulfilled its role. Assuming there was an owner who was still making money from it, he would be doing so with the original negative, not with this. And assuming he existed and was doing so, we would surely be able to easily find him; how can you do business if nobody can find you? Your question cannot be taken seriously. -- Zsero (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- They original market role was to illustrate Mr. Bithorn in some text about Mr. Bithorn. Old images like this usually belong to commercial image banks like Wired, that make money from licensing this image for illustrating texts about Mr. Bithorn. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
|
