Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 4

Dragon Court (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The previous article was deleted because the information was regarding an online game that was generally agreed upon to be less significant than "Court of the Dragon Emperor." The result was that the previous page was deleted and instead made into a redirect for The History of China. I was one who contributed a great deal of time and effort onto this wiki page (the Dragon Court regarding the online game), but I do understand and agree why the page is used as a redirect instead. The admin who deleted the page and made it a redirect instead is on a "wikibreak" and his page says to contact another admin, instead. I would like for the page history be e-mailed to me so that I can repost the content that I worked on for that page on a more appropriate wiki page (specifically, http://dragoncourt.wikispaces.com/). I appreciate an admin taking the time to review this, and I would greatly appreciate it if the former content of this page could be provided to me so that it can be reused. Thanks! Divine Auror (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Result was redirect because no proof had been found that this was a Blue Ribbon school. However, it was honored in 1992-93 (as Kennedy Junior High School). I'd like to bring this back to review because this proof has been found. Raymie (t • c) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! I note that it's actually listed as "John F. Kennedy Junior High School," (p. 12) for those like me who were looking for it in the "K"s. As the closer, I'd say un-redirection of the article would be consistent with my close, provided the source is included in the restored article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally don't think that being a Blue Ribbon school makes a middle school notable--sources do. But if the closer is happy, I suggest we close the DRV as overturning the deletion is within the preview of the closer in any case. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Which sources do? All that that pdf presents is a directory entry. The assertions in the afd that being a blue ribbon school somehow overrides WP:GNG should have been discounted entirely; winning an award is somehow still enough to squeak past some secondary notability guidelines like WP:WEB, but it isn't part of WP:ORG, and I don't think it ever has been. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The GNG is not the only way to show notability--there are other exceptional ways, and the community can use it a given case whatever written or unwritten guideline it pleases and make whatever exceptions it wants to. Indeed, both WP:N and WP:GNG go far beyond the usual implied flexibility to say specifically that there can be exceptions This award has consistently been considered sufficient for US schools, although as it happens I was one of the few people not really comfortable with it. But the consensus has been to accept it, and I don't see the merit in trying to change this particular established convention, especially when it's part of a long standing compromise. We have enough stuff in WP that's actually harmful to get rid of without worrying about such borderline cases. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since people have brought it up, the reason I phrased the close the way I did is because I felt there wasn't a consensus on what to do if the school was a Blue Ribbon school and that such a consensus wasn't going to develop because the issue wasn't ripe for discussion until we knew whether or not it was such a school. (There were delete/redirect comments along the lines of "because there is no evidence of it being a Blue Ribbon school".) So if someone wants to AfD it again, I have no problem with it, but it should be restored pending that AfD. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OccupyUCD3.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I'd like to request a formal review of my closure of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_24#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg. I'm not certain if I judged consensus and policy appropriately in this debate. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the right call to me. That's an image of a particular event in media res, so there's no possibility of a free replacement ever being available. In the particular article in question it's a very suitable image to use, it enhances the reader's understanding of the subject, and no free image could do the same job. It's appropriate for us, as educators, to use that picture in that context.—S Marshall T/C 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That hasn't been the standard by which we've judged the use of non-free images (particularly images from news agencies) in the past. It sounds like what you're saying is that we have a free hand to use copyrighted commercial photos if they serve an educational purpose, despite WP:NFCC#2. In the past, we've only used them if the photo itself was the subject of critical commentary, like the Iwo Jima flag raising photo. Kelly ^hi! 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was careful not to generalise and to confine my comments purely to this particular image of this particular event used in this particular article. In context NFCC#2 seems like a reason to use a low-res version of the image, but it doesn't seem to justify actually deleting it. I haven't said anything about a "free hand to use copyrighted commercial photos" and that is not my position.—S Marshall T/C 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK - thanks...but I'm not seeing that low-res exception in WP:NFCC. Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As NFCC#3b implies, it seems to me that a low-res image might not replace a commercial role where a high-res one could.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Later) Since there apparently is a free image this should obviously be preferred! Doesn't make Fastily's close wrong since it's predicated on a debate that took place when nobody knew that.—S Marshall T/C 04:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the close was reasonable. Arguments were made that the image, at a reduced resolution, wouldn't cause a financial impact. I don't believe those were effectively countered. So NFCC#2 would seem to be met. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the free image, I think we can now delete this as NFCC is clearly not met now. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I am not seeing as this is a correct usage for a Deletion review. User:Fastily appears to be saying that after talkpage discussion he is not sure if he closed the discussion correctly. No one has asked User:Fastily for a deletion review only that he clarifies his reasons within policy for his close. So, this is not a deletion review it is the closer no longer says he supports his own close and as such he should imo clarify that, and revert his close to allow discussion to continue on the non free discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not actually all that uncommon. Very much like someone issuing a block and then going to ANI asking for the community's opinion really. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While Fastily accurately reads the expressed consensus in the FFD discussion, his unease with the policy problems involved is well-taken. The image rather clearly fails to satisfy NFCC#1; as some comments noted, the event was widely photographed, including an apparently freely circulated video, and there is certainly nothing establishing that no freely licensed substitute can be obtained. NFCC#2 generally prevents us from using copyrighted news media images, especially for very recent events, and especially when substitutes are available. The fact that a copyrighted image may be the "best" image available is not a justification for escaping NFCC limits; that argument is always balanced, if not outweighed, by the fact that the same argument also indicates greater commercial value. Finally, the image fails NFCC#8: it adds nothing that cannot be gleaned from its textual description. An image like this clearly carries more emotional resonance than text alone, but that is true of images generally; emotional impact is not the same as contextual significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "freely" circulated cell phone video is copyrighted by the author, Thomas Fowler. There are no free alternatives in the public domain. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article [1] indicates that multiple videos have been circulated, and that the owners' contact information is public. There is no indication that anyone has requested that a free-licensed single frame be allowed; even absent such a license, such a capture is more suitable under NFCC#2 than a commercial news media image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct at all. The article refers to Chris Wong's live USTREAM video at the time of the event. However, it is not at all clear what his video captured or if it is even available. There are currently three famous images of this event distributed by the mainstream media—journalist Wayne Tilcock's official news photo for The Davis Enterprise, an amateur photograph taken by Louise Macabitas which was used for the popular memes which arose after the event, and Thomas Fowler's cell phone video. All three of these images are copyrighted. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree with you on 1, 2 and 8, but 8 is especially jarring. I think emotional impact is important, but even so there is meaning added. I didn't know what pepper spray looked like, how much was being sprayed, etc. This image cleared it up nicely and makes the overbearing nature of the police in this context crystal clear. I don't think any set of words would have been able to get that same idea across. And as it was an event, either there are free images or there are not--new ones cannot be made. I've not gone hunting for one, but others apparently have and have come up with nothing. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's policy comments and as per the closers doubts. IMO the rapid inclusion of this non free picture after the articles creation is a strong contributor factor to the reason that a commons compatible picture has not been found. Youreallycan (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn without a bit of prejudice to Fastily, while I see why he closed the way he did, this image is replaceable by free images and as such is by definition unacceptable. Replaceable means only replaceable by a free image of adequate quality, not "the best" or "the best known". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no free images, so how could it be replaceable? Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like, from above, quite a few people have photographed or videotaped the event. Have they all been contacted to see if they'd be willing to release a photo and/or video of theirs under CC-BY-SA? Given the nature of this event, it is almost inconceivable to me that at least one would not be willing to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already looked into this several times. Is there a single good reason anyone here would oppose a free image? No, of course not. However, there aren't any, and because these students and journalists are receiving thousands of e-mails per day, it is virtually impossible to contact them or expect a reply. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't answer the question "Has anyone contacted them?". I've had great success with "I'd like to use your image on Wikipedia" as far as getting copyright release. Until someone has actually tried and gotten a no, rather than speculating it won't work, we can't say irreplaceable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's impossible to contact them—there's your answer. And to address your claim that it is "inconceivable" that there aren't free images of this event, I would like to point you to the "widely circulated video" of the University of Florida Taser incident and the famous image taken by Andrew Stanfill of the Independent Florida Alligator. That is the version of the incident that Wikipedia uses, even though several copyrighted images and videos were widely circulated. To date, there are still no free images of the "Don't tase me, bro!" incident. If we were to listen to you and others, Wikipedia would not have an image taken by a journalist in our article and the article would be entirely deficient. The use of an image of the UC Davis pepper spray incident captured by Wayne Tilcock of The Davis Enterprise is entirely supported by past precedent and represents best practice. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If we knew there were independent videos or photos of those, the use of those images would be inappropriate as well, until and unless we'd ruled out getting a free image. And if we need to wait to contact them, we'll wait, and make the determination after such becomes possible. "Irreplaceable" doesn't mean "It can't be replaced by a free image right this minute". If it is demonstrated, by denied requests for release in the future, that the image is indeed irreplaceable by a free image, I'd happily change my mind. But that hasn't happened yet, and we don't need any image right this second. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's be clear: there is no free equivalent to this image. We don't have a crystal-ball to predict whether there will be a free equivalent. We know that there isn't one right now at this moment. You can't place a current limit on inclusion based on what might happen in the future. It's the other way around. Either you can prove, with evidence, that a free equivalent exists, or you can't. It is best practice on Wikipedia to use non-free images taken by accredited journalists of historic images when no free image exists. I've illustrated this practice with a reference to File:Meyersarrest.jpg. Regardless of which pepper spray image we use, the current image by journalist Wayne Tilcock was recognized by the mainstream media as one of the defining images of the event. It is used appropriately in the relevant article to give a visual representation of the pepper spray incident and cannot be replaced by any free image at this time. You say that we don't need any image right now, but there is no rush to delete it since it is used appropriately with respect to non-free content criteria and is supported by precedent. To delete this image, you must show that it is not used appropriately and there is a good reason to delete it. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this case. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • We often place limits on what may be done now on what may happen in the future—that's what "replaceable" means. We do not, for example, use an image of a living person on grounds that it may be replaced in the future, even though there may be no free image right this moment. If there exists a reasonable possibility of a free image, no nonfree is permissible. If that chance is ruled out in the future, that'd change, but that hasn't happened yet. We always work on the basis that nonfree images are excluded until proven needed, not that they're acceptable until proven unneeded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A reasonable limit is acceptable only if you can predict the future based on current or past performance. I've shown that such limits, based on related images already in wide use, aren't predictive of future results. This image has already been proven "needed"—that's what the Xfd was about. This deletion review is supposed to address the closing rationale, not rehash the Xfd. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Very well then—the IfD was closed improperly based upon a nose count rather than an evaluation of the image's appropriateness, if you'd prefer that. No amount of "Keep, this one's DIFFERENT!" supercedes NFCC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Who is arguing that in order to support the inclusion of this image, one has to violate NFCC? How is this image any different than the use of File:Meyersarrest.jpg in University of Florida Taser incident? They are exactly the same, all the way down to the source. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Depends, really. If there are others who have photos or video of the Meyers incident, and they have not yet been contacted for potential copyright release, that one's inappropriate as well and just hasn't been caught. If not (or if the others involved have been contacted and declined to release), it's legitimately irreplaceable. I don't know enough about the situation to say more than that. Regardless, "Something else is here like it!" is never a valid inclusion criterion. You must demonstrate that this particular case is appropriate, not something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It's already been demonstrated on the original Xfd, and all the arguments against using this image have fallen flat. You and others have said free replacements exist. That's been shown to be false. This is a historically important image from a journalist in the same way that File:Meyersarrest.jpg is, and Wikipedia has a long history of including historical images from journalists, with File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, File:Kent State massacre.jpg, File:Nguyen.jpg, and File:TrangBang.jpg as only a very small sample of this practice. This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is best practice. There is no difference between this image and the other images listed above. Previous deletion debates, such as Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_12#File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg have determined that the notability of historical images merits inclusion under a fair use rationale. We do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Is there any evidence that this particular, specific, photograph is "historic"? Kelly ^hi! 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Yes, an enormous amount supported by reliable sources, some of which was offered in the original Xfd. Would you like me to provide highlights? Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I went back through that, and none referred to this particular photograph. Kelly ^hi! 05:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Then you made an error and must have visited the wrong Xfd. Here, let me help you: the correct Xfd you are looking for is named Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_24#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg. A small sample of reliable sources indicating historical importance appear in comments dated 20:17, 26 November 2011 and 23:34, 26 November 2011 and 01:25, 27 November 2011. Many more can be provided, and I may have to compose a specific subpage to highlight them all. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • No need to get snarky. Those references seem to refer to the video(s) taken at the scene, or some other image by another photographer that was used as the basis for parodies, not this particular photo by the Davis newspaper. Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I wasn't being snarky. The photo in question, Wayne Tilcock's, was awarded TIME's Best Pictures of the Week.[2] The caption of the image on the award page refers to the event in the image as "a now infamous act", which is exactly what the majority of critical commentary refers to as well. Based on wire distribution stats, I would say that Tilcock's image appears on more mainstream media news sites than any other image and has become one of the defining images associated with this story. Most of the critical commentary on the images associated with this event, such as the commentary that appears in The New York Times, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Washington Post—is about the iconic, historic nature of the images of the officer pepper spraying the students in general. But the fact remains, Tilcock's image won an award from Time magazine and has been featured in more news stories than any other image. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Respectfully, being #20 of 32 "pictures of the week" on a news blog doesn't exactly hit the "historic" threshold - and the photo that is shown on the website is actually not this photo, but a different one. Another of the "pictures of the week" is a dude in an Elmo suit.Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Respectfully right back at you, Time used another frame from Tilcock's set for their webpage, however, the image that appears widely in almost every mainstream publication is the image currently on Wikipedia. Time used a different frame from the same set, but the iconic image that Tilcock published widely is the one we currently have and that can be proven. In any case, if Time has chosen to use a different frame from this set, I would be happy to upload a new reduced version that matches it. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to Fastily for bringing this here - like others here, I think he did a good job of reading the consensus, but unfortunately consensus can't trump policy - especially WP:NFCC, which is one of the few policies passed to us by the Foundation. I do think this image is about as clear a violation of WP:NFCC#2 and fair use law as there can be - its usage directly contravenes the terms of use of the news agency website from which it was taken, and nobody has shown that this particular photo has been the subject of widespread commentary (though the event it depicts has been). I'm also pretty sure a determined effort could turn up a free image per WP:NFCC#1 - the photo itself shows scads of photographers/videographers at the scene, both amateur and professional. But as long as this image remains in the article, there's little motivation for anyone to seek out a free image, or for a photographer to freely license one. As a result, I'm going to have to say overturn with no prejudice against Fastily. Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I was wrong. Most of the sources refer to the video, not this image. I will therefore be uploading a frame from the video instead. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't see any difference between uploading a video clip instead of a frame, based on the critical commentary available. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NFCC#3b. Kelly ^hi! 06:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, Thomas Fowler has asserted his claim of copyright and YouTube has begun removing unauthorized use of his images/video.[3] Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I'm now in possession of a free video of the incident. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And...it doesn't include the pepper spray. I see why there are no free images or free videos of the incident. In the video that I'm watching, most of the people with cameras in the periphery of the event didn't start filming until after the officer was finished. When they rushed forward to get a pic, they were blocked by other people in the chaos. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, RT America has uploaded this as CC BY 3.0 on the Internet Archive and on YouTube. However, in some footage, they give "credit" (courtesy) to a YouTube user for some of the video. Can I use this? Viriditas (talk)
              • Does the licensor hold the copyright? Kelly ^hi! 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not at all clear based on the YouTube terms of service and their "Standard YouTube License" agreement.[4] According to that document, the YouTube user who provided the content "retains ownership rights", but the wording of the RT video implies that RT received permission (courtesy) from the owner to attribute and re-license as cc3.0. I should also note that in another instance, RT used similar footage from another user (terrydatiger), but that footage was never released as cc3.0,[5] presumably because the user wouldn't allow it. The two relevant videos released as cc3.0 by RTAmerica can be found here:[6], [7]. They are identical to the same videos on YouTube which have the same cc license. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to compliment Fastily for asking for feedback here. Asking for advice about whether or not one got something right is never a bad thing. In the original discussion, I argued for "delete", and I'm still pretty sure that I was right on policy grounds. Although there is genuine disagreement about whether or not another, free, image is available, no one in the discussion was able to convincingly refute the fact that the image is copyrighted by an entity with a commercial interest, and that the commercial interest in the image is very much current. It's hard to see how our use does not interfere with the commercial rights of the copyright owner. The arguments about low-resolution, cropping, etc., are rather weak, because in this case the image in a useful (for Wikipedia) form will probably still infringe on commercial interest. The discussion was dominated by a very large number of contributors who seem not to really understand NFCC, who made weak "keep" arguments based on that misunderstanding. But there were also a few experienced editors who argued for keeping in ways that were certainly reasonable, and my personal opinion that that they failed to refute the delete arguments are just that: my personal opinion. So the closer had a difficult task of determining to what extent the keep arguments should have been discounted. Many of them should have been, but probably not all. Perhaps, at the end, it was really "no consensus". Given that DR should address only whether the closure was incorrect, as opposed to whether the result "should have" gone the other way, I'd be inclined to weakly uphold the closure, with the caveats that NFCC#2 probably is failed and that another nomination would be reasonable. Better yet, someone ought to start a page about the photograph itself, making this discussion moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S.: Given that the discussion was divided, it would have been better to provide a few sentences of explanation of the reasoning behind the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with you about the NFCC#2 argument at all. It's true that using non-free content will always infringe on commercial interest, but DRV is not here to uphold the profit potential of enterprises that are unrelated to Wikipedia, and NFCC#2 doesn't say we shouldn't infringe on commercial interest. NFCC#2 is specifically about not replacing the image's original market role. A low-res version wouldn't.—S Marshall T/C 02:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good illustration of why I concluded that my personal opinion that #2 was indeed failed does not constitute a sufficient reason to overturn. You and I disagree, as we often have before, and as we probably will again. Actually, I agree with you that I was imprecise in my choice of words when I talked about infringing; as you correctly point out, the standard is replacement of the original market role. I still think that our use of the image would do that, at the resolution that we would be talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:NFCC is a policy that must be met, and in a case where the close fails to meet that standard it should be overturned. We should never take advantage of free use, and as subjective as the guidelines we have are, I think its clear that using this image so soon after then event does "impinge of the respect of economic opportunities for the owner". It is not reasonable to suggest historical importance so soon after the event, this is not the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Father Edward Daly on Bloody Sunday. As stated, until good faith efforts are exhausted, which barely a month after the event is not reasonable, this image does not meet fair use criteria. If nothing else, the quality of the image is "too good". Massive respect to Fastily for asking for further community input in such an important decision. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. It's a defensible weak keep, "weak" noting many "keep" !votes don't speak directly to the policy, and an easy "no consensus defaults to keep", but not "delete" because that is definitely not the reading of the discussion - many keep !votes were not well rebutted. The applicability of WP:NFCC to the image is a matter for the discussion to decide, not for the closer to supervote. Noting that the photograph was only a week old, I think a no consensus close followed by a renomination in a few weaks is a good way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a freely licensed photograph available for use. It's also the most used photograph of the event and can be found on the DavisWiki here (here exactly). We contacted the photographer, Louise Macabitas, and she said she is fine with any usage as long as it's attributed to her. --Philip Neustrom, philip@localwiki.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.220.39 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I used to live in Davis and the Davis Wiki is cool. Thanks for contacting the photographer Philip. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - comment - that file being mentioned is not as yet released under a commons compatible license. - currently the situation with that picture appears to be that it is non free and the photographer holds the copyright but Philip Neustrom asserts he has permission to use it as long as he attributes the photographer, in a non free way. Replaceable does not mean that we have not found a commons compatible picture so we can use any one we find under non free - the foundation focus is on commons licensed pictures. The number of people at the event makes it easy to claim that there are so many hundreds of pictures from the Occupy event that the answer to replaceable is clearly YES - the inclusion and desire to add immediately on creation of the article a non free professional press photo and its continued inclusion in the article is a major contributory factor to the reason we have not yet found a commons licensed picture. Youreallycan (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philip is saying he has received permission from Louise Macabitas to upload the photo as cc-by-sa. What is the problem here? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go on then - upload it under cc-by-sa if you assert and have evidence that the picture is released under that license. I will note that however that Phillip is not the copyright owner and that he also never mentioned cc-by-sa. Philip said, she she said she is fine with any usage as long as it's attributed to her. That is different from her releasing her copyrights under a specific license such as cc-by-sa. Youreallycan (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) how about we do this properly and ask Philip to facilitation registration of the release via OTRS? See Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. If someone can nudge me once the permission has come in, I'll find it and sort out the paperwork? Cheers 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) adding belated sig Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that even necessary? The photo was already uploaded on to the Davis Wiki as cc-by-sa. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Responding generally not casting aspersions at Daviswiki. Because it keeps all the paperwork tidy and not everyone is as scrupulous as we are about proper attributation. Being a free project suggests that we should respect rights holders and we don't (or shouldn't) upload free images unless its absolutely clear that they have the correct license and proper attributation. In this case, this will be the key free image that everyone will be using in future so we owe it to the rights holder to make sure its properly released. Since I already offered to push this through on the OTRS side I find your suggestion of bureaucracy mildly offensive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) withdrawn[reply]
        • Since I was responding to Youreallycan and not you, and since I was not aware of any comments you've made on this issue, I find your response highly presumptive and somewhat arrogant. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • O RLY?? Perhaps you should take more care with your threading since you comment appeared immediately below mine and appeared to address the issue I had suggested. Next time, I suggest you put your bullet under the comment you are responding to and other users who lack the facility to read your mind will understand your intent better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Removed as actually my fault Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Take more care? You mean like the care you took when you forgot to sign your comment at 10:02, 7 Dec, making the last signed comment on the page appear to be Youreallycan? My bullet was in the right place and it now appears I was responding to you not Rob. As for reading minds, that's rich coming from somebody who expects me to know who they are when they forget to sign. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC) It's not your fault. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Facepalm yes, you are right now I look closer. You can consider me trouted, redfaced and abashed. Profuse apologies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • No worries. Thanks for taking care of the OTRS. I appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture has not been released on that wiki under the cc license, at least - if it was they would not need to say - "Photo by Louise Macabitas, used with permission." - permission to use is not a clear release under any specific licence. Youreallycan (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love you guys (seriously). Sent an email to Philip asking him for contact info for the photographer. Hopefully we'll get her clear release and problem solved. The photograph she took is quite excellent I think. Update: Philip is in contact with the photographer asking for CC release. I count 13 different people in her shot (just one angle) who are also filming or photographing the event, most of whom appear to be students and not professionals, so surely a free-alternative exists. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]