- File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This image was deleted for violating WP:NFCC; in particular for being an unnecessary and "decorative" use. That the image is non-free is not contested; it comes out of the Otto Perry collection. These images are acknowledged to be non-free but their fair use is encouraged by the holder, in this case the Denver Public Library. That this is so should permit a broader reading of WP:NFCC. If we're allowing non-free images at all (we are), then the view of the copyright holder surely matters when evaluating a fair use claim. Put another way, adopting a standard stricter than the one urged by a copyright holder makes no sense unless there is a potentially free image available which should be used instead. It was established during the debate that no free alternative is available.
Regarding the question of "necessary", this was a good faith disagreement between participating editors over this matter, which I submit is editorial and should not have been the point on which the debate turned. We're not talking about a fair-use gallery or some such abomination; the image was used in-line, with accompanying text, to help illustrate a unique historical event which took place and which was a major reason for the specific train's notoriety.
SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted the image but did not provide in my view sufficient rationale, which is why I've recapped the debate here. Without saying why he found the "deletion crowd" more convincing we have no idea what his interpretation of policy is. When you're going against numbers that strongly (which I myself have done as an administrator many times) you're obliged to explain, in detail, why one group has policy right and the other wrong. He has been asked to reverse himself and declined, while suggesting we come here.[2] The deletion should be overturned because there was not consensus that it violated WP:NFCC, particularly points #1 and #8. Mackensen (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn by the simple metric that this comes down to an argument of perceptions. Is an image needed to illustrate this race? If yes, then #1 and #8 are clearly bogus (there is no free image available and it meets 8 by definition if that is true). If it's not true 1 and 8 apply. The majority felt (as do I) that the image is important for illustration of the topic (I can't even see the image, but I certainly find myself wondering what it looked like, the text certainly wasn't vivid enough). As an additional IAR argument, we should recall why we have the NFCC rules. I'd claim, as an IAR thing, that the licensing for this particular image should play in role in this discussion (or policywise it meets WP:NFCC#2 so strongly it comes out on the other side). Hobit (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn for all the reasons stated above. The image appears to have been deleted more over the editorial views ("unnecessary", "decorative", etc) of the OP than of his having made a persuasive case that it actually violates policy (WP:NFCC) ones. Of the six editors other than the OP who commented in the original discussion, the overwhelming consensus (5 to 1) strongly opposed deletion and favored retention of the image file (and its in-line uses) on both grounds by providing well reasoned arguments and evidence that it meets the policy requirements for using non-free images, and its use in the two articles in which it appeared was editorially appropriate and justified. To justify the deletion of any image because one (or more) editors claim that its use is editorially "unnecessary" is inappropriate as those grounds represent both a strawman argument and constitute a red herring as by definition it is NEVER editorially "necessary" (i.e. unambiguously "needed" or "required") to include ANY image in ANY article on WP or any other encyclopedia. Instead the correct editorial tests and considerations for its inclusion or exclusion are an image's "appropriateness" and "relevance" in illustrating the topic. When challenged on editorial grounds, the retention or deletion of such disputed images are established exclusively by consensus. It is thus clearly against WP:CONS for a single dissenting editor (or admin) to overturn such consensus to use and/or retain such an image or illustration. Centpacrr (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment has been struck through because it was posted by a sockpuppet of banned user Techwriter2B (See Note below) |
|
Note: The following "comment" posted by TardyHardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was struck through after it was positively identified as being posted by a sockpuppet of User:Techwriter2B, a Long-Term Abuser who was banned from editing on WP by the community on July 18, 2010, and it was determined that the comment had actually been posted here as part of a long term pattern of "wikistalking" user Centpacrr who had posted a comment immediately above. (The new "TardyHardy" sock account was subsequently BLOCKED on September 11, 2010.)
*Support I'm not sure where some editors have gotten the impression that the use of images in the Otto Perry Collection "is encouraged by the holder." But I suppose if something is said loud enough, long enough, and often enough, people will believe it. What the Denver Public Library website actually says about this collection is:
- "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright© protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees. We require that all images be credited to the Denver Public Library, Western History Collection.
- All responsibility regarding questions of copyright or invasion of privacy that may arise in the use of material that has been reproduced by the Denver Public Library must be assumed by the user.
- The Denver Public Library gives no exclusive rights for the use of its material. Permission is granted for a one-time use only. Any subsequent use of an image requires the written permission of the Library and the payment of additional fees."
- Ergo, SchuminWeb is not "adopting a standard stricter than the one urged by a copyright holder." As Hobit said, "the licensing for this particular image should play in role in this discussion," and the licensing conditions and fee arrangements posted on the DPL website clearly prohibit the widespread use of the image on the Web.
- As to the necessity of the image, it really adds nothing to the article. It already contains an image of the Pioneer Zephyr in 1934, an image of passengers arriving at Chicago, an image of passengers awaiting its arrival in East Dubuque, and more. To add an image of a group of people with a burro is superfluous, even if it is commemorating a historic dash across the country. No one has yet explained why linking to the image at the DPL is not an acceptable solution.
Bottom line: Copyright and licensing considerations should be paramount here. Both make use of this image on Wikipedia unacceptable. TardyHardy (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Also note that it says "We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. All images in this collection may be used for educational, scholarly purposes and private study. We do request that a credit line be included with each item used. " I think that would explain where we got it from. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Overturn In both instances the image was used to illustrate more than just the train itself. In the Century of Progress article it shows the arrival of the train at the exposition, one of the central events of the fair's second and final season in 1934. In the Pioneer Zephyr's own article, it is the only illustration in the Dawn-to-Dusk Dash section which is exactly what this particular publicity photo was created to do. (It is also the only image currently available that does so.) As pointed out above, however, the "standard" of "necessity" is, by the very definition of the word (something which is unambiguously "required" or "needed"), not a meaningful standard upon which to make an editorial judgement about an image's use. The correct and logical standards are instead "appropriateness" and "relevance" which, if disputed, is determined exclusively by consensus. The clear consensus (by a 5 to 1 margin) of the editors who commented on that in this case strongly supported both usages of the image as being appropriate, relevant, and editorially justified.
- As for fair use, the image fully meets all of the requirements of 17 U.S.C. §107 which governs the "fair use" of otherwise non-free material. Also as a "publicity photo" the image was originally produced in 1934 for the express purpose that it would be distributed without charge with the intention that it would be freely reproduced just like thousands of other similarly created images are used throughout the many Wikipedia Project's various sites worldwide.
- With less than two months on WP and 68 total edits to date (none of which related to either this topic or WP policy issues), it is unclear to me that TardyHardy has yet demonstrated an adequate level of experience or understanding of WP:NFCC or how the WP works editorially under this name. Although well written with the skill of a budding tech writer (to be), his/her views here should probably be given much less weight on technical matters compared to those of other editors and admins commenting here (and earlier) with many years and tens of thousands of edits on WP in evaluating a complicated policy issue such as this. Centpacrr (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Well, I think it's a simple question of whether the language specific to the Otto Perry collection (which I've linked above) is still operative. As the website is still publicly accessible I think it's a reasonable assumption. I was told during the deletion discussion that the Denver Public Library's views were irrelevant and I wonder whether obtaining a statement from them would do any good here. If I have to defend the "necessity" of every image I add to an article I think I should go mad. Anyway, if the page in question is in fact not operative then that constitutes a change in policy on the DPL's part which we would have to take into account. In particular, note this statement: The Denver Public Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in the collection. We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. All images in this collection may be used for educational, scholarly purposes and private study. We do request that a credit line be included with each item used. The other copyright notice seems primarily concerned with commercial reproduction, and is difficult to square with the known status of the Perry collection. That collection page, incidentally, is the top hit for Otto Perry on Google. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The language quoted above about needing to get "prior written permission" for the "Web page use" of a digital image file supplied by the DPL clearly refers only to such use that is made for a "commercial purpose" ("...or use them for any commercial purpose, including display or Web page use..."). Non-commercial, educational use such as on Wikipedia, however, is equally clearly not "...beyond that permitted by fair use..." (17 U.S.C. §107) and thus does not require any written permission of the Library. Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as a unique illustration of an historic event. In any case, fair use is explicitly permitted,and specifically intended to be interpreted broadly. The closer substituted his own view for the clear view of the community. If closers were permitted to do that the results would depend upon who happened to close, rather than on the community interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Textbook example of why we don't vote-count. Compelling arguments that the image use did not satisfy NFCC 1 or 8 were presented at the FfD and no satisfactory refutation (or nothing that even came close) was provided by those advocating retention. Additionally, we don't "go soft" on non-free content just because fair use is encouraged - such encouragement is irrelevant to re-users in countries without a fair use provision. CIreland (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, I'd be curious why you think the case for 1 and 8 was made and why you think those attempting to refute that argument were so unsuccessful. I'm seeing arguments about being irreplaceable (you can't go out and take that picture today) and highly relevant to the article. I think that's a pretty clear attempt (and I'd say largely successful) to argue against 1 and 8. Could you explain what you are seeing? Hobit (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image can be satisfactorily summarized with text; hence it is replaceable with a free alternative. CIreland (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather from the above comment that it is User:CIreland's position that developing "consensus" is a meaningless process when it comes to deciding on how the community seeks to decide the correct interpretation of the project's guidelines in each individual instance. Of the eight editors who have so far stated their views in this discussion, seven strongly believe that the original deletion decision was improperly made against the consensus views of the community and therefore should be overturned. Each of these editors provided specific reasons (or endorsed those already stated by others) above as to why they believe the image (which had been in place on WP for more then three years without complaint) both satisfies the requirements of NFCC, and that its use to illustrate the two articles in which it resided was both appropriate and relevant.
- Cireland is free, of course, to personally disagree with the conclusions of the other seven, but unlike them he/she provided no rationale whatsoever in his/her comment as to why he/she disagrees other than a dogmatic statement that "no satisfactory refutation (or nothing that even came close) was provided by those advocating retention." That being the case, I do not see that the other seven editors have been provided with any basis upon which to evaluate Cireland's position. In order to have one, Cireland will need to state exactly why he/she believes that his/her positions on the interpretation of the guidelines are correct for this specific image, and explain the rationale (if any) as to why he/she believes that the views of the other seven editors are completely wrong.
- His/her reasoning that "The image can be satisfactorily summarized with text; hence it is replaceable with a free alternative." is so broad that it could be advanced as a reason to delete every image or illustration in Wikipedia. It is also an "editorial" judgment (as opposed to a "wikilegal" one), and in such instances a dispute is meant to be resolved exclusively by consensus. Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Centpacrr, there is a difference between counting heads, and determining whether an image is compliant with WP:NFCC. The closing admin, correctly in my view, closed the discussion based on strength of arguments. In particular, considering the other images present in the article, I don't believe this adds significantly to the reader's understanding, and so fails item 8. PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually the image appeared in two articles: Century of Progress and Pioneer Zephyr. The second section of the Zephyr article ("Promotion: Dawn-to-Dusk" dash") is a 650 word accounting of the train's then 1934 record setting run from Denver to Chicago where the Zephyr made its long awaited public debut as a central exhibit and attraction at the Century of Progress Exposition. The image in question was selected to illustrate this section as it is the only image available that depicts this specific historic event which is also the exact subject of the section. This issue was never addressed by the closing admin other than to say he liked the "delete crowd's" (the OP and one editor) approach, but gave no reason as to why he thought it was "stronger" or "more persuasive."
- As WP provides for seven days of discussion to determine the community's views on the interpretation of its guidelines when there is a dispute over whether or not a particular image file satisfies them, then by definition it would seem to me that this is intended to be a consensus (not a single admin's) decision as to what the community's view of how its guidelines should be applied in each case. If a clear consensus can be ignored at the whim of a single individual closing admin, however, then it seems to me that you are saying that the "consensus" process on Wikipedia is really just a sham. And I repeat that the closing admin in this case did not even give a rationale as to why (or on what basis) he found the minority-of-one "delete crowd" had made a "stronger case" than the five editors who favored retention. Centpacrr (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of having a process at all then? We'll just grab an administrator at random and ask whether he thinks the image adds to the reader's understanding, then go from there. Save us all the trouble of bothering to actually articulate a position. Astonishing. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the the image can be satisfactorily summarized with text is not a black-and-white thing. Some will agree, and some will disagree. In this case, it's clear that the consensus was that it cannot be. In some cases the NFCC rules are black-and-white and I'd support an admin overriding a mistaken consensus. But this isn't one of those cases. It's a matter of opinion what makes for a satisfactorily replacement and no admin should be placing their opinion above the rest. Hobit (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The responses from the supporters of the deletion are ignoring the rationale of WP:NFCC which are helpfully stated at the top: create a free-content encyclopedia, limit Wikipedia's legal exposure, and to facilitate the use of non-free content. The first and third are of course in tension, but the broad purpose of NFCC is providing a way to incorporate non-free content. The second prong is clearly the most important: widespread use of non-free content is an invitation to copyright violation problems. I've always understood our non-free content policies as prophylactic: giving the project cover and administrators the tools to combat copyright problems. In this light, I find it astonishing that the Denver Public Library's public stance on fair use is considered irrelevant and submit that this could only come from an incorrect reading of NFCC. I also don't see how any reasonable reading of point #1, taken together with the third rationale, could be used as a justification to delete any image which could be described with text. Text is not considered a free version of an image; that's a separate part of #1. Whether text is an adequate substitute for an image is really a question for the editors of an article; in some cases it can be but in this case many editors didn't think so. That some editors disagreed suggests that at the very least there was not consensus on that issue and it should not have formed the basis for deletion. If we're now deleting images on this thin a rationale then something has clearly gone wrong with the deletion process and an RfC may possibly be in order. Images with proper fair use rationales and appropriate discussion in context should not be at risk, especially as the fair use status of the image in question has not be seriously challenged. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my earlier comment, I was talking about the Pioneer Zephyr article, which contains other free and non-free images depicting the train. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepting your position arguendo, there was a legitimate fair use of the image, which should not have resulted in a deletion. It's not clear to me whether the closing administrator himself was aware that there were two uses. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not disputing whether the image is fair use, merely that neither use complies with WP:NFCC#8. To explain what I mean, I've added a free image to the Century of Progress article. In all honesty, I don't consider the previous version of the article to be significantly better than the current version. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is great and all, but the M-10000 didn't make the famous run. It's a good image, but it doesn't provide the same content. The idea that an image can be fair use and still fail #8 is ridiculous. What possible purpose does it serve to delete an image under those circumstances? Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the question of whether an image satisfies #8 is so inherently subjective that it really shouldn't be used to determine deletion at all. This is beginning to border on the farcical. No one's really prepared to defend the original rationale; and we've about doubled the original debate in order to determine that the image was fair use but that some editors don't think it belongs in one of the articles. There isn't any consensus over #8 and if there ever was, it was not to remove the image from either article! How much more ink has to be spilled before the few remaining defenders of this process acknowledge that a mistake was made? Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Bottom Line": It seems to me that the real genesis of the problem here is that the standard of a non-free image having to be "necessary" (i.e. "required" or "needed") for its "fair use" inclusion in an article to be valid under WP:NFCC is really a false standard because it is one that also can never be met. As the decision to use any image file (non-free or otherwise) anywhere on WP is always the product of an "editorial judgement" means that any such inclusion is also always optional. That being the case, by definition NO image can ever also be deemed as "necessary" which implies that its inclusion would then not be optional but instead mandatory.
- As I have stated earlier both here and in the original discussion, the correct (and only logical) standards upon which to base any editorial decision for using an image is its "appropriateness" and "relevance" to each article in which it might be placed. When why an image meets these standards for an already "in place" image are later disputed (this one had been up since 2007), the question of retention or deletion is resolved through seeking the consensus of the WP community through the established "FfD" (WP:FFD) process. Once that discussion ends and the community's position is established (in this case clearly for retention by super majorities of 5-1 in the original discussion and 8-2 here), then the closing admin is obligated, in the absence of any other objectively supportable technically disqualifying reason (of which none have been advanced this case), to honor the community achieved consensus decision as opposed to unilaterally imposing his/her own personal, individual view. That being the case, the decision of the original closing admin to "delete" the image file was improperly made and thus must be overturned. Centpacrr (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_6#File:Obama_MentoringAd.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=watch){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
