Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3

File:Still from Erica.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. Since it's now been replaced; in addition as pointed out that a person is deceased does not entail that we can immediately use any non-free image, there is no such permission at WP:NFCC#1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by @DHeyward with the rationale: "Commercial image where the image is not the subject of discussion." Since this isn't a valid reason for immediate deletion, I'm starting this FfD so that interested parties can discuss. For the record, I am neutral. FASTILY 08:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @George Ho and @Andrew Davidson -FASTILY 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this individual died a handful of days ago. There has been no attempt to obtain a free-to-use photograph. E.g. there are many, many images at Flickr, has anyone contacted the owners of each of these images to request they be re-licensed under Creative Commons? For such a prominent activist, the likelihood of a free image being available is high. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to a free version likely available, the current version was ripped from a professionally created video with a commercial copyright. It's the definition of db-f7. --DHeyward (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video in question is now historical as that campaign is over and done. The image has no commercial value because it is a fuzzy still from that video. The claims that good faith efforts to find free images have not been done are false. I have made multiple searches myself and I am usually quite good at finding things online if they are there to be found. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ~~clearly didn't~~ appear not to have read what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man is violating multiple arbcom sanctions by involving himself in this matter and insulting my competence. George Ho was already all over this issue – see Fastily's ping above – and TRM is forbidden to interact with him. TRM should please strike his comments and withdraw. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your competence, I'm saying you haven't asked those editors at Flickr to review their own licensing. I have done this in the past with success. And this nomination relates to a file you are responsible for, no-one else. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version of the file was loaded by George Ho and so that's the version in question now. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this specific nomination. I have made no mention of any other party. I've clarified what I said above. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure speculation to say it has no value. First, it's not clear if the campaign owns the copyright or whether they have the rights to release it. Second, if Bernie writes a book or supports a movie, this type of material has obvious commercial value. It's certainly questionable enough that it does not belong in Wikipedia without the proper release. --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to sources such as Rolling Stone, the video was produced by Garner's people and financed by the Sanders campaign. It was not a commercial product; it was an advert. They posted it on YouTube and encourage others to share it. You can post the video on Twitter; you can share it in email; LinkedIn; &c. When the entire video is made so freely available to use and share, it's absurd to suggest that we can't use even a still from the video as fair use. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing. I find that, not only is TRM subject to relevant arbcom restrictions but that DHeyward was topic-banned from "from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed". By hanging around the Erica Garner article, trying to disrupt it, they have violated their topic ban. As Heyward's speedy deletion nomination was apparently made in bad faith, for political reasons, I suggest that this discussion be speedily closed, please. Andrew D. (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no infringement of any restrictions on my behalf - I qualified my statement about the apparent inability to find a free image (i.e. you just looked, but didn't ask, as I have done, successfully, a number of times). But what is now troubling is that you would subject editors to personal attacks and hyperbole with claims such as ""... suggesting that her life did not matter ..." – an egregious attack on an editor who is simply noting that a standalone article should be subject to deletion because, in their opinion, they fail to meet the basic policies of Wikipedia. I see nothing at all about anyone here suggesting that someone's "life did not matter". That is a despicable claim and should be redacted, and you should be advised not to make such unfounded statements again in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of arbcom restrictions, I now see you have been formally warned during an arbcom enforcement case which (ironically) you started about your behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the person is now deceased, so the image would qualify under fair use guidelines. The image is used in the infobox as a means of visually identifying the subject of the article. It's a suitable portrait showing the subject as a political activist. I don't see any issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, just because someone is deceased, it does not mean the image qualifies under fair use. That's a common misconception. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not immediately allow non-free of recently deceased people as we expect ppl to try to make a reasonable effort to find a free image. That period lasts about the same time that BLP's extension to recently-deceased lasts (eg around 6 months). --Masem (t) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that a free to use image of the deceased individual has been sourced, this screengrab of a copyrighted video is not required to highlight a minor aspect of the article. Step hen 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]