Knowledge:Files for deletion/2009 December 8

597:- It is really incredible when an iconic image such as this one is nominated for deletion. This image is the article, it is the massacre of innocent bystanders in the exact moment it occured, this is the Ponce Masscre. A quick google search will show that dozens of websites have published it because of it's historical importance to Puerto Rican and American history. Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain. Where is the logic in that. The very importance of this image in relation to the Ponce Massacre is stated by Francisco H. Vazquez in his book, Latino/A Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society (Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; ISBN-10: 0742563553; ISBN-13: 978-0742563551) In page 398, the importance of the photo is demonstrated in the statement made by Mr . Arthur Garfield Hayes who investigated the Ponce Massacre reported the following to the American Civil Liberties Union, of which I will quote a small part: 1993:- the source and copyrightholder are unclear. Given the uniform this image is from before 1941 while he was with the San Juan Senators. It seems likely that this is a press image that was printed in a news source. While I can see no evidence that "El Imparcial" or "El Mundo", at least, ever renewed copyright on papers from this time—there is no proof or indication that this image was made by them, rather than made by someone else and used by them, nor is there any proof that this was printed in either paper. Bithorn appears well covered in books and I am fairly sure that one of them will have this image and will attribute it/source it. It seems likely that some off-line searching could find a image that could be proved to be in the public domain, or at least find an image for which there is a correct source. This image may be free, but we simply do not have any information to confidently assert this. - 1057:- You stated above: "That's a great source. Good work. Someone please remove the image from 8 of the 9 articles it's currently being used and write a paragraph or two about it based on these two sources. Once it's done, I'll write a valid fair use rationale and withdraw the nomination", now it seems as if your are retracking and setting conditions which I believe is not right, if we consider that the image is PD in accordance to Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009". Even if it were non-free, there is no reason to set up conditions that said iconic image be removed from the "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico" article since the Ponce massacre is part of the history of that political party and the "Ponce, Puerto Rico" article since the Ponce massacre is part of that city's history. This reminds me of the iconic image 5993:- One of the interesting facts that all of us have failed to notice or mention here is that this image was taken during a Federal Trial in a United States Federal Court. In other words, it couldn't have been taken by a family member nor private citizen, because cameras for personal use are not permitted during a Federal legal process, only Federal employees in charge of public relations and certain certified members of the press are allowed to take images during a Federal process which they in turn provide to other members of the press. This image should be permitted to stay in the subjects article only. 601:"In this photo we can see practically all the policeman at Aurora and Marina (17 or 18) ready to fire against the people. All of them have weapons in their hands. We also see a policemen the moment that he fires his revolver. There is a white smoke from his shot. The shot is being fired directly at the people on the sidewalk. The policeman can be seen clearly. This Committee has been unable to understand why this policeman and the others fired directly at the crowd and not at the Cadets. We have tried to understand why the government did not use these photographs all of them widely published." 6011:

date of this trial. Today press can apply to attend - with no guarantee of acceptance. Hunting further everything tells me that the Court Photographers were uniformly federal employees, and I cannot see that, around the time of this photo, the work was contracted out. The angle of the photo hints as to the location of the photographer - not one that the court officials would fail to notice. Even though we have no definite source I am convinced that this image was made by a US federal employee in the course of their work and is correctly licenced as

501:(7) From the various discussions that this particular Candidate for Deletion issue has generated, it is evident that a considerable, over-arching, and time-consuming, good faith effort has been on the part of several editors to identify the photograph's copyright status and/or owner. It is difficult to see how such effort could be ignored in the unlikely event that an existing copyright obscurely existed somewhere. 2721: 712:", and not about the image itself. I don't feel competent enough to write an article section based on sources commenting on the image. I trust our great contributor Marine for that task. I volunteer, though, to write a proper fair use rationale for the image once its properly used in the article (something I don't quite trust Marines's competence for doing so). -- 5500: 1897:"replace the original market role"? The image is already on several websites. Can you locate a free equivalent? Wp:nfcc 10a only states that the copyright holder information is supplementary to the identification of the source that, in this case is already provided in the image description page. -- 901:

Images published with notice but copyright was not renewed from 1923 through 1963 are public domain due to copyright expiration. "El Imparcial" which went out of service 35 years ago, could not have renewed it's copyright which expired. If I am correct, this would make the Ponce Massacre image public

5836:

No, I'm not that ignorant about our non-free content policies, even though I messed up at times, therefore no offense taken. The Garriga family had a website once, but obivously they have chosen to post their images in the Picasa web album. Pardon my ignorance, I don't understand what is wrong since

84:

per those below who reasonably content that this image is PD. For the record, though, if this image were unfree, this FfD would have been closed as delete as the arguments below regarding the significance of this image are unconvincing. If it is determined that this image is in fact not PD, it is my

1957:

Because the two main Puerto Rican newspapers in Bithorn's era where "El Imparcial" which collapsed in 1975 and "El Mundo" which collapsed in 1990 and it is unlikely that the copyrights of the image were renewed, there is no evidence of this happening, therefore it should be in public domain due to

750:

I cannot judge the evidence that it is public domain for non-renewal. but it does seem to be an iconic picture as shown by its wide use, & the references to the discussion of it, &would thus appear to meet NFCC. Further, the nom seems to admit as much, and if the only problem is adjusting

6010:

after a great deal of thought and hunting. From 1946 to 1991 ( as far as I can tell) the only photography in US federal criminal trials was by court photographers - the press were banned by an act of congress until the Federal court allowed a trial run in about 1991, or at least far later than the

964:

JPG is displayed. To assume this is to assume that the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Puerto Rican Endowment for the Humanities are both knowingly violating copyright law. And after the little Napster discourse above, I reply: Guess what, sonny, we live in a different Internet world

1003:

I confess I cannot assert the PD status of the image. If the closing admin decides it's PD. I'll be ok with it (as long as the closing admin is not forum-shopped by one of the keep-voters). I understand the original copyright holder went down before the time to renew the copyright. But wasn't the

987:, it has been established that the image is Public Domain - "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009". The image is discussed in the entire article and all criteria has been met, there is no need to present "conditions" since all conditions seem to have been met. 1896:

Before we keep discussing about the details of wp:nfcc 10a, are you aware that the image is about the first baseball player from Puerto Rico to play Major League Baseball? This is a bad resolution gray image, are you seriously proposing that the placement of the image in his article is going to

5929:

I have expanded the non-free rationale in the description page as required by policy. The page has link to the source of the image and my understanding of WP:NFCC #10a is that the information about the copyright holder is only supplementary to the identification of the source of the material.

187:

The source is, according to the article "Carlos Torres Morales, a photo journalist for the newspaper El Imparcial.". I cannot find any record to indicate the newspaper applied for their copyright to be renewed (tried a few places). If the copyright was not renewed—as seems the case—then this is

3937:- we do not take copyright works (like this) that people have put great effort into and use them to decorate articles. The image itself has no sourced discussion in the article. Perhaps the original artist attempts to sell web copies and we are also infringing on his rights there. Image fails 1834:

944:) responds "Welcome to the Internet" to the statement -- as made by Tony the Marine -- "Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain," such responding editor obviously either wasn't around when 2821:

Although dead, this guy was an American politician and some offical images of him should be around (not necessarily on google, don't be lazy!) and they would be in the public domain. Regardless of that, we should not be using a picture that was apparently copied from a news source.

728:

I have to agree with "Damiens", my expertise is article writting, mostly Puerto Rican historical and military related articles. He is more acquinted with image issues. I'll look into more book references and he'll make the required fixes to the image rationale when the time comes.

1095:- Since Puerto Rico falls under the US copyright laws in 1937 as well as today, and the image is PD in accordance to Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, I have posted the most logical license {{PD-US-not renewed}} which was recommended by 5837:

they work in a way similar to Flickr. The image is there. Now, I'm asking in good faith, is there any reason for which it cannot be used in the subjects bio with the source and rationale? It can be eliminated from all other article (It has been done already).

842:

That's a great source. Good work. Someone please remove the image from 8 of the 9 articles it's currently being used and write a paragraph or two about it based on these two sources. Once it's done, I'll write a valid fair use rationale and withdraw the

948:

got nailed, or hasn't cared to learn about the incident. Well...or (worse yet) knows about it, but unfortunately doesn't understand its repercussions and impact on the rest of the Internet publishing world. Of course, the self-serving defense of "well

139:

Copyright holder not identified for this non-free picture. Also, image is a non-famous picture of a famous event. It shows people and police on the streets, and I don't think it adds any relevant information to the article's (free) text.

673:

If the article discussed the picture in original (I mean, wikipedian-authored) text sourced to two or three books that discussed the image, and the picture is used solely on the section where it's discussed, I would "vote" to keep it.

1883:

There are valid occasions where the copyright holder can not be known, like some picture published by some terrorist (or otherwise illegal) group. Having downloaded the image from some copyright-lenient website is not a valid reason.

169:

Is the image famous? Did it won some prize or was commented about? Is it being used in the article in a section regarding the picture itself? I would withdraw the nomination in this case. But for now, I have no reason to believe

2767:- the nomination is on the basis that the image is replaceable with a free image, either one that is available or could be created. Opposing arguments need to sucessfully rebut this assertion, and there are none here that do - 478:) applied for an extension (which would had brought its copyright as far as 1993 anyway). The wide availability of the picture from so many sources (see 1 above) would suggest its copyright in fact expired and was not renewed. 5851:

We can't use non-free images when we don't know about the copyright holder. Have you considered contacting a family member and asking for a release of an image under a free license? Are you familiar with the OTRS system?

1813:

is a criteria for inclusion. You're supposed to comply with all 10 criterion, not just the ones you pick. Repleacability and image resolution have not been contested on this discussion. Your argumentation is immaterial.

1076:

If the image is deemed PD, you can you it wherever you want including your user page. If it's non-free, it should be used just in the article that discuss it notability, and not in the article that discuss the events it

965:

now than the one where people (you?) lived where Napster illegally made available for anyone's download pleasure millions of copyrighted songs. To such poor judgement, I say, "Welcome to the Internet after Napster"!

4289:

Although related to the subject of the article, and argbly irreplaceable (by another image) this image is not necessary for the understanding article. Its omission would not make the article harder to understand.

5423: 155:- Image is relevvant to article and is a famous picture which not only circulated in the local newspapers of Puerto Rico at the time, but also appears in other websites in which the event is dicussed. 3657: 6504: 6338: 6170: 5617: 5251: 5083: 4902: 4734: 4566: 4398: 4229: 4053: 3825: 3489: 3321: 3153: 2985: 2618: 2450: 2279: 2101: 1557: 1383: 1209: 602: 670:" the image. But you'll have to improve that. Currently, the article just duplicated a long quote from the cited book, which is itself an excessive use of non-free material (the copyrighted text). 5824:? Honest question here (really really honest!): Are you that ignorant about our non-free content policies or you're just think other editors are? No offense intended, really. Please reply. -- 5791:

Copyright holder unknown. Image is not really found the source url or anywhere in the supposed source website. Image is tagged as non-free and used decoratively in at least one article.

686:

You must know by now that the image meets WP:NFCI # 8. If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article,

3900:- Promotional image of a deceased individual; irreplaceable and necessary. Kindly dedicate your energies to contributing to our encyclopedia in a constructive, not destructive manner. 921:

Right --- Which explains why the image appears EVERYWHERE on the Internet without a copyright credit line. And that EVERYWHERE includes the respected Puerto Rico Online Encyclopedia

432: 5917:

is a criteria for inclusion, and not a list of qualifying attributions. That means that you have to comply with all ten of them, and not just one out of your convenience. --

507: 6061:- I made a notation in the File and license change as recommended by Peripitus, to be replaced by the suggested template recommended by Damiens upon it's creation. 5899:

My request is based on Non-free content #1, the low-resolution image is not replaceable because the subject is deceased and "no free equivalent is available". --

2730: 1004:

copyright inherited by someone at the time of the newspaper closing? I, for one, have no idea how to determine if the copyright of a given work has be renewed. --

522: 511: 422: 38: 33: 2854:. As a recently-deceased politician, it should be easy to find a free image of him, or to find someone willing to release an image under a free license. -- 1931:; from 1923 through 1977 if work is published without a copyright notice it will be the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. 2162: 1945:

What makes you believe this was published without a copyright notice? It looks like a newspaper picture, where the notice comes at the picture side. --

517:). The photograph was crucial to the ACLU establishing the Massacre had been intentionally authored by the U.S.-appointed American military governor 1039:

Non-free use in that 4 articles is unacceptable. If not PD, this image could be used in just one article, in the section about the picture itself. --

953:) Napster is exactly what we are trying to avoid happen to Knowledge!" is always bound to come back. What a pity! Some people just don't get it... 825: 774:

who investigated the Ponce Massacre. His words upon viewing the image made a clear discription of the same. The image is discussed in the article.

496:, without no one person or entity coming forward claiming it holds the copyright, further attests the picture is in fact in the public domain. 818:"This photograph is remarkable in that the policemen are not shooting at the uniformed nationalists but at a terrorized crowd in full flight." 2813: 930: 4594: 643:

Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain?

3541: 3037: 4626:

This small non-free headshot is not necessary for the discussion about the documentary. All relevent information is already in the text.

5475: 5387: 5303: 2153: 1734: 4586: 4490: 3853: 6222: 5783: 4618: 1058: 794:

The image should be used solely on the article's section where it's discussed, and not on disparate sections on 9 different articles.

6610: 6390: 5759: 5669: 5399: 3373: 4114: 4081: 1928:, "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009"; Section "Works first Published in the United States" 3845: 3749: 515:

By The Commission of Inquiry on Civil Rights in Puerto Rico. 70p, np, May 22, 1937. Law Library Microform Consortium. Kaneohe, HI.

368:

Iconic image of a sensitive incident in Puerto Rico' history. I hope we can fix the problem because this is an important image. --

198:

as Puerto Rico seems to fall under US copyright (in 1937 as well as today). Damiens.rf.....less snarky would be more productive -

5417: 5405: 4954: 4118: 1609: 1435: 5960:

Are you telling me that NFCC 10a is wrong? Maybe I misread or missed something: "Identification of the source of the material,

3717:

A free alternative drawing could be made from the data (or maybe this one is already free, since it was done by nasa/colorado.)

1865:

Are you telling me that NFCC 10a is wrong? Maybe I misread or missed something: "Identification of the source of the material,

475: 5393: 4786: 4105: 3621: 2331: 545:). Further attesting to the notoriety of the photograph, an oil canvass painting has been made by a well-known New York artist 334:

The image serves as visual aide for the reader and giving the reader an idea of the situation surrounding the events discussed.

5279: 4073: 3977: 6556: 6468: 6302: 6134: 5581: 5411: 5215: 5135: 5047: 4866: 4698: 4530: 4450: 4362: 4193: 4017: 3789: 3453: 3285: 3205: 3117: 3013: 2949: 2582: 2502: 2414: 2243: 2065: 1742:

Copyright holder not identified (it could be some news agency, for instance). Image was just grabbed from some nice website.

1521: 1347: 1173: 1030: 870: 131: 3633: 297:

irrelevant. By the way, if it is so, what "Photo was taken by Carlos Torres Morales, a photo journalist for the newspaper

5271: 5175: 1775:. Random images one finds in google or cool website are not automatically fair use, let alone acceptable on Knowledge. -- 6480: 6314: 6146: 5751: 5709: 5593: 5227: 5059: 4878: 4710: 4542: 4374: 4281: 4205: 4029: 3877: 3801: 3651: 3639: 3465: 3349: 3297: 3129: 3005: 2961: 2909: 2594: 2478: 2426: 2255: 2077: 1630: 1533: 1359: 1261: 1185: 878: 107: 17: 4930: 6498: 6486: 6332: 6320: 6164: 6152: 6037: 5611: 5599: 5245: 5233: 5077: 5065: 4896: 4884: 4728: 4716: 4560: 4548: 4392: 4380: 4257: 4223: 4211: 4047: 4035: 3819: 3807: 3627: 3483: 3471: 3315: 3303: 3147: 3135: 2979: 2967: 2670: 2612: 2600: 2444: 2432: 2340: 2273: 2261: 2095: 2083: 1551: 1539: 1377: 1365: 1203: 1191: 2307: 506:(8) For those not familiar with the event or the photograph, the photograph gained notoriety as the famous Massacre ( 6366: 2129: 6474: 6308: 6140: 5587: 5221: 5053: 4872: 4704: 4536: 4368: 4199: 4023: 3795: 3709: 3645: 3459: 3341: 3291: 3245: 3123: 2955: 2789: 2588: 2470: 2420: 2374: 2249: 2071: 1972:

Please, understand and adress my question: What makes you believe this was published without a copyright notice? --

1585: 1527: 1353: 1179: 192: 4922: 4826: 6592: 6492: 6444: 6418: 6326: 6278: 6252: 6158: 6110: 6084: 5725: 5699: 5605: 5557: 5531: 5359: 5333: 5239: 5191: 5165: 5071: 5023: 4997: 4890: 4842: 4816: 4762: 4722: 4674: 4648: 4554: 4506: 4480: 4386: 4338: 4312: 4249: 4217: 4169: 4153: 4143: 4041: 3993: 3967: 3813: 3765: 3739: 3597: 3571: 3517: 3477: 3429: 3403: 3309: 3261: 3235: 3141: 3093: 3067: 2973: 2925: 2899: 2842: 2803: 2755: 2736: 2700: 2606: 2558: 2532: 2438: 2390: 2364: 2267: 2219: 2193: 2089: 2041: 2015: 1710: 1676: 1650: 1545: 1497: 1471: 1371: 1323: 1297: 1197: 1149: 1123: 1026: 72: 6198: 5645: 2299: 2203: 463: 454:(3) The picture was taken 72 years ago, on March 21, 1937, by Carlos Torres Morales, a photographer working for 402: 6532: 6358: 6262: 4426: 3531: 3027: 2121: 2025: 1411: 1237: 173:

And since its famous, it shouldn't be hard to discover the images copyright holder. Please do your homework. --

5451: 5111: 2781: 2710: 2646: 1577: 1481: 6591: