Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 2

2 July 2006

Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg

Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 June 23 for the original discussion.

According to WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it is not fair use to use "a photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo."

User:Howcheng said, in closing the discussion as a keep, "This qualifies as fair use in Deus Caritas Est. In this case, it is NOT being used simply to show the Pope."

The closing administrator is correct that the subject, in this case, is not the pope, but rather, the signing of Deus Caritas Est. However, the photo is being used to illustrate that subject and thus, it does not qualify as fair use. Modern news media photos almost never qualify as fair use and are routinely deleted on WP:IFD. I suggest overturn and delete as copyvio. BigDT 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe you are reading the counterexamples too literally. #5 usually refers to a press agency photo of a person (such as a head shot) being used to illustrate an article about that person, without any reference to the action being captured in that photo. See at the end of WP:FUC:

  As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above.

  • That only works in the negative - it doesn't prove a positive. "If A then B" does not mean that "if B then A" is also true." BigDT 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• For Deus Caritas Est, there are no free images that show the Pope signing the document. That image cannot be replaced by some other image. Fair use applies. Now it might be argued that it's not necessary to show the actual signature taking place, but that's a decision for the editors of the article. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But that still isn't fair use. Fair use criteria are an "and", not an "or". "I want to" or "I need to" does not alone make it fair use. Just because there is no free alternative doesn't mean you can steal someone else's commercial image. If an image is in the list of counterexamples, it isn't fair use. Think about it ... if we can use media images as fair use, then why couldn't any newspaper print AP images without paying for them? After all, no free alternative is available. It just doesn't work that way ... press images are not fair use. BigDT 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy establishes a ten part test. Because two of the criteria are not met, the test is failed. Here is my analysis:
  1. No free equivalent exists - asserted above and likely true. I consider this met.
  2. Not used so as to replace the original market role. The primary original market role for any wire service photo is sale for use illustrating news articles, this is fine for Wikipedia but would not be for Wikinews. A secondary original market role for wire service photos is sale for use in follow-on coverage. Wikipedia is follow on coverage. Further specification of the criteria is "our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product" and "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." This is weakly met.
  3. "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images" The image is a low resolution version, so this test is met.
  4. "The material must have previously been published." Met
  5. "Unfreely-licensed media cannot be used as decoration." Not met - this photo is merely decorative and provides no additional content to the article.
  6. "The material meets the media-specific policy requirements." - presuming met.
  7. "The material must be used in at least one article." - Met.
  8. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Not met. The image only illustrates the signing, which is not a significant contribution. It does not identify the subject of the article.
  9. "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace." Met.
  10. Certain data must be present on the image page. Met. GRBerry 16:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • That's a very good point too ... I hadn't considered those criteria. But also, I think it's important to understand that if any of the counterexample cases are met, the image is NOT fair use. Using a photo from AP without permission is no different than using an article from the AP without permission. To be perfectly honest, this one isn't really a debatable issue - using a media photo in order to illustrate the subject of the photo is NEVER fair use. BigDT 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • GRBerry, that's kind of where I was headed, but a few steps farther than I got. I had asked the first question, why should this specific image be used, which I believe was fulfilled, but I didn't ask the corollary question, is an image of the Pope signing this document really necessary (I left that for the article editors)? BigDT, your reasoning that using a media photo is NEVER fair use is incorrect, otherwise we wouldn't be able to illustrate the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima article, which is about the famous photo taken by the Associated Press, but it slides in under the {{HistoricPhoto}} fair use claim. howcheng {chat} 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The example of Iwo Jima is covered in the "not so famous as to be iconic" part of WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. This photo obviously is not iconic. Can you find anyone, anywhere, not associated with Wikipedia claiming that using a modern day news photo could be considered "fair use"? `Heck, you won't even find many on Wikipedia. BigDT 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I'm not arguing against deletion here. If it's not proper fair use, then it's not proper fair use and I learned how to apply the fair use criteria better. howcheng {chat} 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)