:
- File:Corralesx.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
And thus starts round three of the discussion of this image. It's a non-free image, sure, but of a dead person, Diego Corrales. It was kept unanimously at this FFD. I was requested to reconsider my decision by a number of editors, and while I didn't feel it appropriate to restore on my own motion, I brought the discussion to DRV, where the discussion (third item at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 28) endorsed the decision. However, within three hours of this closure, Carnildo popped up and unilaterally deleted the image (against the consensus of both FFD and DRV), on the supposition that the image was replaceable and that "it is reasonable to expect that there aren images out there that people are willing to license freely". Not only was this expressly refuted at the FFD (the DRV discussion was solely on whether the image passed WP:NFCC#2 as a press agency photo), but even if the image had never been up for discussion before, it requires a 48-hour tagging period. I, along with another user, requested Carnildo to reverse this decision, but theyhas declined to do so. Requesting overturn of the deletion in line with the consensus of the two discussions. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, with
 . Wheel warring.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as issues claimed in the speedy were already dealt with in the FFD. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. (Disclosure: I closed the previous DRV, which endorsed the "keep" closure at FFD.) From the WP:CSD policy:
If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.
Since this is a fair-use image, it can hardly be described as a "newly discovered" copyright violation. If Carnildo feels that the first FFD reached the wrong conclusion, he is free to bring it back there. Also, I note that while the nomination at FFD failed to address replaceability, two of the "keep" !voters didaddress it, leaving it impossible to claim that the replaceability issue wasn't discussed.--Aervanath (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted: According to the subject's article, he made well-publicised appearances in 2005, 2006, and 2007. There are presumably hundreds, if not thousands, of cell-phone and digital camera pictures of him out there that could replace this one. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. The whole purpose of deletion review is to review a prior decision. When two straight declarations are made that an image should be kept, it is not the place of anybody to unilaterally come in, ignore the rules of CSD, and delete the picture. Wikipedia has procedures and protocols for a reason - because on balance, if we follow them, we will make better decisions. I've seen images deleted for what I thought were silly reasons. Since I'm not an admin, if I wanted to circumvent the community's decision, I'd have to go find a sympathetic admin to restore the image. But that wouldn't be right of me and it certainly wouldn't be right of the administrator. I don't see any rational justification for saying that it's acceptable here, either. 72.196.196.187 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- restore Once someone is dead the default assumption is that there do not exist any free images of the individual. If we didn't do that, it would be nearly impossible to ever conclude that an image of a dead person was acceptable for fair use. Moreover, I'd like to express my concern about such deletions in general. I hope that Carnildo is not deleting other images of dead people with no advance warning based solely on his personal opinion that there might exist an acceptable alternative. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick Flick search gives 153 hits for "Diego Corrales"; Google Images gives 8800. I haven't checked to see if any of them are under a free license, but even if none are, there are plenty of options for requesting re-licensing. --Carnildo (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, none of those images on flicker are free. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree with Carnildo that we can presume there are free images out there that could replace the image. That said, in order to be speedy deleted using this criterion, it seems that there is a two day waiting period before it may be deleted. So on those grounds, the deletion should be overturned. I consider the previous FfD and DRV moot, because they dealt with another NFC issue. After restoring, it can be sent to FfD for this issue, wherein the past FfD and DRV should be irrelevant. ÷seresin 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, if there are free alternatives available, I'd be happy to see one of those used. However, until then, we use what we have.--MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...until then, we use what we have" - WE DON'T HAVE IT! It's an image from press agency Associated Press. If you want to freely use a copyright-protected image just because you don't have anything better, be smart and make a copyright-violation of one of the Flickr images, since the flickr-user is less likely to make money from the image (and also less likely to put his/her lawyers against us!).--Damiens.rf 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore unless and until a free alternative is sourced, uploaded and this image is orphaned. At that time the image should be deleted through proper process and not speedily deleted. As far as I can see all the discussions to date have proven that no free alternatives are currently known to exist, even if this was not the explicit focus of any of the discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. In general, the clause "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" is considered satisfied when there exist non-free images that could hypothetically be released under a free license. If this were interpreted otherwise, I don't think any non-free image could be used on Wikipedia, since the copyright holder could always (hypothetically) release the image under a free license. Such an interpretation would deserve widespread discussion, and is certainly not a case for speedy deletion. – Quadell (talk)14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't agree with the reason Carnildo gave for deletion. However, this is an AP image, and AP routinely sues companies that reuse their content without permission. The AP makes its money by licensing content in this way, and since the image is a clear NFCC#2 violation, it was correct to delete it. There are thousands of non-free images that could be used without violating NFCC#2; the value to the copyright holder is only an issue when they sell the rights to use the image, as is the case here. – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In case you were wondering, the AP does sue over this sort of thing. Since this case involves the very real possibility of the WikiMedia Foundation getting into legal problems, I have notified Mike Godwin, WikiMedia's general council, about this issue. I e-mailed him and left a message at User talk:MGodwin. I also notified Jimbohere in case he wants to comment. – Quadell(talk) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore without prejudice. Carnildo has acknowledged that he/she speedily deleted the image without tagging it and waiting 48 hours because he/she anticipated that the evaluating administrator might disagree with his/her assessment and decline to speedily delete the image. This, of course, is a reason not to speedily delete something. The idea behind speedy deletion is to avoid clogging the system with uncontroversial (among the vast majority of knowledgeable community members) cases, not to push through controversial deletions before anyone can stop them. This clearly isn't a cut-and-dried case, so send it back to WP:FFD for full evaluation by the community. —David Levy 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete - This is a replaceable fair use image. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That's firm hard policy and if the community has not been enforcing it appropriately, then it is important to do so. Firmly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been unable to find a free equivalent. I suspect one exists, but none appear to be available and clearly none could be created. How does this situation not meet the criteria? Hobit (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We don't pick and choose which non-free images we use based on the probability of the copyright holder suing us. We either use non-free images or we don't. Any non-free image of a dead person or anything else in recent history is potentially replaceable with a freely licensed image. So if Jimbo is to be called in to comment, it shouldn't be about this image, but about the project's use of non-free images. The consensus in every discussion has been to keep, so unless we are to presume that all non-free images are potentially replaceable, someone needs to demonstrate that this one is. Otherwise the wording of our image policies needs to be strengthened. لennavecia 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. Speedy deletion was against process and against the consensus expressed in two different deletion discussions. As for the arguments to delete, he's dead, so nobody's going to take a picture of him. The assumption that there must be a free picture of him somewhere is utterly without merit if no one can find one. If one is found, that's when we delete the image.--Dycedarg ж 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and meanwhile we just ask AP to fk themselves and push their business model up their asses. --Damiens.rf 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Dycedarg did not address the NFCC#2 concerns, it's true, but that's no reason to be incivil. – Quadell(talk) 19:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NFCC#2 issue has been addressed in that the image is of reduced quality, as noted in the previous discussions. لennavecia 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. The AP charges providers to reuse even reduced-quality versions of their images, and sues those who use them without permission. – Quadell (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not reduced quality. It was web-standard quality, there's a big market for this kind of images. BBC.co.uk, for instance, uses this image at the same resolution. And I assure you they're not doing that for free. --Damiens.rf 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're arguing that we delete the image because it's not small enough? So make it smaller. I fail to see how this is a reason for deleting it. As for whether or not the AP is going to sue us: That's not a determination that we are obligated to make. The foundation has laid out fair use guidelines and this image follows them; if the guidelines need alteration or specific exemptions need to be made for this pictures or AP images in general than that is the responsibility of the foundation or their lawyer to tell us that directly. Jimbo's statement is nothing of the kind. IANAL, but from what I know none of you are either. Companies do not get to decide whether or not their pictures are subject to the same fair use laws as everyone else's pictures; if our fair use guidelines actually do their job of protecting us from getting sued, then they will protect us from the AP as solidly as they will anyone else.--Dycedarg ж 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This part is important: At 2PM, I set my mind to get a free photo of this man. By 2:30:37, I had one. "Jimmy, thank you for the email. Diego Corrales was a good friend of mine and you are more than welcome to use any photos of mine you would like for Wikipedia. I only ask for a credit in my name." I emailed back to confirm which license he's ok with, and I'll be able to upload it for him later today. This is why I say that that calling this image "replaceable" is correct: it was replaceable. Is 30 minutes of work too much work? No, it is not. That's part of the research process. We don't cut and paste from other sources because it would be faster. We do the legwork. And we're proud of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
