Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 22 August 2015 (→File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg: so MH,HE and Getty are all anti-Rice and Rice owns negatives therefore she owns the copyright?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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 thoritative reliable sourcealling 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)

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)