494:. I call it theft, because that is what it is. Ignorance of the law is no defence. What do you think "respect for commercial opportunities" actually means in this context? This image is most valuable commercially while the news cycle surrounding this event is still running (and during follow up news reports, of which it seems there will be quite a few), which is the very time you are (still) arguing that Knowledge (XXG) has a valid claim to use it without a valid license. It does not. You should be very careful here, as I suspect, in your ignorance of even the basics of copyright law, you are probably not aware that it is not Knowledge (XXG) that is going to be legally liable for damages arising from this theft, unless/until they are in receipt of a takedown notice, and only then if they refuse to comply. As the self-admitted uploader of the image, it is you personally who the photographer/agency can sue for damages, if/when they notice the reason the image might not have made as much money for them as it could have, was because it was published here without a valid claim of fair use. Reducing its size doesn't mitigate the offence here, since it is still quite easy to make out what it shows, and you are on record above as being unwilling to even ask photographers if they would release an image for your (clearly only illustrative) purposes while you are in possession of this stolen image. As the Knowledge (XXG) rules on NFCC make clear outside of the Part 2 criteria, they exist not only to protect Knowledge (XXG) and its editors from being sued for copyright infringement, they exist to actually encourage people to produce (or try to obtain through legitimate means) photographs that are properly licensed for Knowledge (XXG). Your ignorance of both the law and the local rules, seem to be about deliberate defiance of that principle, made all the more obvious by your repeated statements to the effect that your desire to keep this image here on fair use grounds alone, will apparently wane once the news cycle has moved on. I will repeat (and you should really answer the point this time), legally speaking, for an encyclopedia's purposes, a valid fair use claim for any image, if it is to exist, will exist for all time. So, if you're still unconvinced that your attempted claim of fair use is theft, will you at least withdraw these potentially incriminating statements to the effect that your interest in the image is only temporary? I ask only out of concern for your own financial well-being, since it seems obvious the image is going to be deleted in due course in three days, precisely because it is obvious no valid fair use claim exists, and likely never will unless/until the precise image (content and composition) rather than the event it illustrates, becomes of historical note. Waiting seven days is obviously not fast enough to fully show respect for commercial opportunities, but it is at least the right outcome in perpetuity.
566:
to apparently upset you with a simple description of the reality of your situation. You can be sued, ignorance is no defence, and evidence of willful ignorance or even obstruction, can be used against you. I have issued no legal threats, nor used a hostile tone, I have merely been frank, after an attempt to calmly and succinctly explain where you had misunderstood the law, fell on apparently deaf ears. There is no defence in the law that says you can delay or even obstruct the legitimate rights of copyright holders, simply because
Knowledge (XXG) apparently allows such matters to be discussed for seven days. I suspect it does not, I suspect the Knowledge (XXG) (corporate and volunteer community) position is that such obvious examples of theft are meant to be deleted well before a legal claim can be made that it/they purposely delayed proceedings in order to illegally extract the newsworthy value of an image under an invalid fair use claim. That appears to be the intent of "speedy delete" opinions, in particular, Part F7b, a position advanced here for two days now, with no reply from either you or Ritchie333. It explains a lot about the way you perhaps view this process that I suspect it was your fear/suspicion that it might have been my photograph that you had stolen, that led you to ignore the sound legal advice I was offering, as well as ignoring other people who had said as much, only even more briefly. If it proves to be this hard to get obvious copyright violators to admit "it's probably not under fair use right now and should go", and the people who do know the law have to be subjected to thinly veiled accusations and even cast as racists just to even get to that point, then I doubt anyone who actually understands the law is going to be willing to participate at all, and will be happy for people like you and the Knowledge (XXG) corporation, to get sued into oblivion. That is not a threat, just an observation.
603:
ability to delete it is paying attention, and they know it's only you who is actually legally liable, should the copyright holder seek damages. They might even use the fact that even now, even after you apparently accept it has no valid fair use, you still seem happy to have got it hosted here for seven days. The organisation only becomes liable as and when someone tells them about this specific image in the form of an actual take down request and they refuse to comply with it, as I have told you once already. I am confident that there probably is a mechanism to get it deleted faster without involving the organisation, otherwise why is there a "speedy deletion" mechanism for exactly this purpose (Part 7b), but removing it from the article seems to do the job just as well, given you only really stole it to use it in the article, as you said.
243:
legally speaking, that publisher is shit out of luck. The validity of the valid fair use claim stands or falls on your ability to expand upon "the image is important for the reader to understand the topic, particularly in years to come" in a way that recognises what the law actually says. The image is helpful in one regard - it shows lots of people were in attendance, and lots of them had cameras, therefore the barrier to obtaining an image legally, if no fair use case exists, is not likely to be that an image does not exist, and that if this particular image is important to the point a fair use claim exists, it should be possible to explain how with reference to it as a specific image, one of potentially hundreds showing the same topic.
439:
it, suggests an intent to willingly violating copyright. You hostile tone doesn't warrant a reply, but on the off-chance there is anybody else here who is wondering, I am a professional photographer who was surprised to see
Knowledge (XXG) had obtained such a good free image of this one event so quickly. Investigation led me here, and the realisation that the image was only obtained by stealing someone else's work and trying to pass it off as fair use. Unless or until you or Ritchie can demonstrate you know the law, I am going to remove it from the article, since it appears this process isn't geared for quickly resolving time sensitive copyright issues.
718:
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If you do not understand the difference between illustration and commentary for the purposes of fair use doctrine, kindly educate yourself, certainly before you dare to accuse others who apparently are knowledgeable of the law, of racist agendas. If this
Knowledge (XXG) article is not purporting to be news reporting of the protest, and no other plausible argument is being made in terms of academic use of the image (mere illustration of a textual depiction of an event not yet proven to be of lasting historical importance, is not educational use), then you have no leg to stand on, as far as the law stands.
469:. Now, though, I read more discussion - I had uploaded the photo as a non-free photo of something being discussed (i.e. not under the option saying the photo itself is object of discussion), which did not give the option to fill in NFCC point 2 about commercial opportunities (it automatically inserted n/a). As the news cycle is still running, there's obviously significant commercial opportunity. I cannot believe you say I have a hostile tone while you're literally calling other editors thieves with criminal intentions; I was genuinely trying to
551:
NFCC policy publicly accessible and to discuss calmly and briefly, as demonstrated below. Editors are allowed to argue why they think a file meets or does not meet NFCC criteria, and walls of text with legal threats asserting that your stance is correct (whether it is or isn't) is considered disruptive to this process. I expect you will want to take part in more of these discussions, and encourage you to (more well-intentioned editors are welcome!), with advice being to at least consider toning it down.
847:
if no explicit release for use in
Knowledge (XXG) exists, the law protects them from the very moment they first published it. If "speedy delete" recognises that in some jurisdictions the monetary damages for copyright infringement of newsworthy imagery are calculated by taking account not just the length if time but also the number of discrete views of the infringement from the moment it was first published elsewhere with a valid copyright notice, then yes, a quick deletion is advisable.
285:
searched a lot to find free images, and couldn't (maybe in a few more days there will be a free alternative), and all the non-professional 'photos' were generally stills from handheld videos that were basically illegible, or taken from somewhere in the crowd without much view at all. There's no better alternative at the moment, and the article is getting lots of coverage for this specific event at the moment, so it would be unwise to remove and wait.
388:
photographer their full commercial rights as vested in their automatic copyright, acknowledging as it seems to do that for this image, they are likely to reduce markedly as time passes, rather than fair use of their work. If you're claiming a valid fair use case exists here, then it would be valid forever, from the moment
Knowledge (XXG) first published this image without an explicit release, and for all time.
532:. 2. Did you not read the end of my comment above? The "But now I see" part about commercial opportunities. I probably could have more explicitly added 'so it's probably not under fair use right now and should go', but I thought that was obvious from the concessionary tone. 3. You are hostile with all your implicit threats of legal action, something not tolerated on Knowledge (XXG) (
846:
Fair use doctrine requires the image to be more than merely illustrative for its use without the copyright holder's permission to be legal. The person who took it (or their employer) is entitled to the full commercial benefit of their work, particularly in terms of its value to news organisations, so
717:
As a newcomer myself, I do not appreciate the insinuation that protecting
Knowledge (XXG) from valid claims of copyright infringement, potentially hugely costly violations when it concerns highly trafficked imagery of newsworthy commercial value, is tantamount to the racist terminology you just used.
464:
extensively, which is
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on fair use. You accuse me of stealing, which I have no intent to do. If you properly read my comments, you would see that: I explained that the image is useful in the article, and calls for it to be removed until a free one is found seem pointless as it
602:
It's no longer there, because I removed it. I am glad, because it should have never been there to begin with. I doubt there is any
Knowledge (XXG) guideline that supports you believing this makes what you did legal, the fact the image is still hosted here appears to simply be because nobody with the
565:
No, you don't get to blame me for your shortcomings. There is no excuse for your failure to heed my clearly stated concerns, which you arrogantly dismissed as a "spiel". Had you not done so, it is clear you would have reached the conclusion that you were wrong not only faster, but without me needing
550:
As a follow-up that I hope is helpful: Krypto, you don't seem to understand that there are multiple of these discussions every day. You can't take your "listen to me! about laws! you're all criminals!" attitude to all of those, nobody can, and so the
Knowledge (XXG) community has decided to make the
284:
until better alternative found. Egghead's deletion argument is flawed - saying the copyright holder has challenged someone else claiming this as their own work on
Commons is not a reason to delete from Knowledge (XXG) when it has valid free use rationale. And it does - it's important to the topic. I
502:
certainly doesn't seem to be willing to return to argue the claim is valid from a "years to come" standpoint, he seems to have accepted that the image is only going to be illegally hosted for another three days. And who knows, maybe he still thinks that this is justified as a slap in the face to us
362:
I had to zoom right in to make sense of that though - it's super wide, all black and white, and the statue is mostly submerged. A fairly nice image, but could just be of a wall unless you're looking for the statue. If you can get it free, fair enough, but the fact it's still not illustrative enough
438:
I would be convinced of your good intent had this reply contained anything more than just a thinly veiled accusation. My "spiel" was an invitation to you to explain you understand fair use doctrine; your non-response, combined with your eagerness to retain the image only while there is interest in
242:
While it is true that copyright law was not written by people who believed time travel is possible, it was written by people who understand that if no valid fair use claim exists, and no other copyrighted image can be legally obtained by a publisher looking for an image of a one time event, then
580:
It's evident that my only shortcoming in this situation was responding to you in the first place. You'll be glad to know that the image is no longer being used in the article, which means it will be automatically deleted in seven days. Notice that? Even when there cannot be fair use rationale,
387:
A copyright lawyer could probably use a statement like "There's no better alternative at the moment, and the article is getting lots of coverage for this specific event at the moment, so it would be unwise to remove and wait." as evidence that Knowledge (XXG)'s intent was indeed to deny the
424:. I think it would be valuable to the discussion for you to explain why. This isn't a part of Knowledge (XXG) people just stumble upon, and while I'm trying to assume you have good intentions, the extent of your responses suggests a vested interest in the matter.
640:- the photo credit clearly indicates the image is from PA Wire, a commercial news photo agency which makes its money from licensing such images. The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. The use of this image is in contravention of
503:
racists who clearly do know the law, but he isn't the person who has exposed themselves to sole legal liability as an individual (Knowledge (XXG) defends any such claims as a corporation) by uploading the image and making an invalid fair use claim.
697:
I don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s a picture of the Colston statue. The srticle is about the statue. You have to explain yourself more clearly, or otherwise newcomers and non-regulars might think
172:
136:
225:
As nobody can go back and take a photo of the statue being thrown into Bristol Harbour, the image is important for the reader to understand the topic, particularly in years to come.
38:
33:
255:. We should run an exhaustive search online for free versions and if that fails, use a photo taken by a bystander as opposed to a commercial agency. --
302:
works fine. We can contact him to see if he's willing to relicense under a commercial CC license, but if not we can still use it under fair use. --
207:
Fails WP:NFCC#4. There is already a version of this image on Commons where the copyright holder is calling for its deletion from Knowledge (XXG).
762:
with is an Associated Press photo. This photo is used on a couple of articles and it is the photo itself which is the subject of commentary. --
328:
That's the best quality image I was able to find as well that wasn't a press photo. Given the recency of the event, it's not at all clear that
581:
Knowledge (XXG) still keeps hold of an image for a week. Take your issues up with the organization, not me, here following the WP guidelines.
862:
733:
403:
313:
266:
832:
17:
710:
676:
318:
271:
233:
164:
683:
The event that the image depicts is the subject of the commentary. The image itself is the not the subject of commentary. --
470:
156:
56:
192:
182:
100:
533:
803:
884:
76:
112:
465:
is more useful now than it will be at the end of the news cycle. Do not mischaracterize that as criminal intent of
200:
130:
118:
196:
106:
858:
729:
608:
571:
508:
444:
399:
308:
261:
124:
850:
721:
391:
699:
880:
826:
759:
751:
72:
866:
836:
809:
771:
737:
712:
692:
678:
657:
612:
590:
575:
560:
545:
536:), so I recommend you stop or take on the collaborative (not preachy) attitude of everyone else here.
512:
482:
448:
433:
407:
372:
345:
323:
294:
276:
235:
216:
149:
708:
674:
231:
854:
725:
604:
567:
519:
504:
455:
440:
415:
395:
303:
256:
212:
144:
252:
586:
556:
541:
478:
429:
368:
290:
94:
788:
641:
461:
333:
332:
is met, but at the very least, there are photos from individuals that would not run afoul of
329:
822:
798:
65:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.
879:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
421:
71:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
745:
703:
669:
497:
226:
818:
645:
299:
767:
758:
because the photograph itself is the subject of the article. Another example would be
688:
653:
341:
208:
141:
754:. This non-free image was a National Geographic cover. It is used in the article
597:
582:
552:
537:
489:
474:
425:
364:
286:
89:
665:
793:
755:
763:
684:
649:
337:
668:" - It was the major news headline on all UK media outlets yesterday.
666:
The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary
526:
you are on record above as being unwilling to even ask photographers
422:
made an account for the sole purpose of nagging at this discussion
467:
eagerness to retain the image only while there is interest in it
875:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
644:. In fact, we have a speedy deletion category for this. See
473:, sorry if that didn't show. (that bit, that was sarcastic)
524:
1. I didn't manage to read quite all that, but I got to
187:
176:
168:
160:
791:, the image itself is not the subject of commentary.
79:). No further edits should be made to this section.
887:). No further edits should be made to this section.
750:Perhaps an example would make it clearer. See
8:
848:
719:
389:
363:to justify non-free use is an issue, too.
37:
700:why is he trying to whitewash history?
525:
466:
420:ignoring your spiel, you seem to have
157:File:Edward Colston statue harbour.jpg
57:File:Edward Colston statue harbour.jpg
29:
7:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion
84:The result of the discussion was:
24:
534:Knowledge (XXG):No legal threats
1:
26:
904:
613:18:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
591:03:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
576:10:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
561:09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
546:09:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
513:09:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
483:22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
449:16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
434:03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
150:02:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
877:Please do not modify it.
867:11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
837:23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
810:22:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
772:21:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
738:11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
713:07:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
693:21:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
679:21:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
658:20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
408:11:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
373:05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
346:20:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
324:20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
295:19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
277:16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
236:14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
217:12:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
68:Please do not modify it.
530:something I never said
752:File:Sharbat Gula.jpg
336:as this one does. --
471:WP:Assume good faith
760:File:TrangBang.jpg
869:
853:comment added by
740:
724:comment added by
410:
394:comment added by
47:
46:
895:
808:
749:
667:
601:
523:
501:
493:
459:
419:
190:
180:
147:
140:
70:
43:
32:
27:
903:
902:
898:
897:
896:
894:
893:
892:
891:
885:deletion review
792:
787:per Whpq—fails
743:
595:
517:
495:
487:
453:
413:
186:
155:
145:
92:
77:deletion review
66:
60:
53:
48:
41:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
901:
899:
890:
889:
871:
870:
855:Krypto Wallace
840:
839:
812:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
741:
726:Krypto Wallace
661:
660:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
605:Krypto Wallace
568:Krypto Wallace
548:
520:Krypto Wallace
505:Krypto Wallace
456:Krypto Wallace
441:Krypto Wallace
416:Krypto Wallace
396:Krypto Wallace
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
279:
245:
244:
239:
238:
205:
204:
181:– uploaded by
82:
81:
61:
59:
54:
52:
49:
45:
44:
36:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
900:
888:
886:
882:
878:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
845:
842:
841:
838:
834:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
815:Speedy delete
813:
811:
807:
806:
802:
801:
797:
796:
790:
786:
785:Speedy delete
783:
782:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
747:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
716:
715:
714:
711:
709:
707:
706:
701:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
677:
675:
673:
672:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:Speedy Delete
636:
635:
614:
610:
606:
599:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
549:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
521:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
499:
491:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
463:
457:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
417:
412:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
386:
385:
384:
383:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
322:
321:
317:
316:
312:
311:
307:
306:
301:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
278:
275:
274:
270:
269:
265:
264:
260:
259:
254:
250:
247:
246:
241:
240:
237:
234:
232:
230:
229:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
202:
198:
194:
189:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
143:
138:
135:
132:
129:
126:
123:
120:
117:
114:
111:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
91:
88:; deleted by
87:
80:
78:
74:
69:
63:
62:
58:
55:
50:
40:
35:
28:
19:
876:
874:
849:— Preceding
843:
829:
814:
804:
799:
794:
784:
720:— Preceding
704:
670:
648:point b. --
637:
529:
460:I have read
390:— Preceding
319:
314:
309:
304:
281:
272:
267:
262:
257:
248:
227:
222:
206:
133:
127:
121:
115:
109:
103:
97:
85:
83:
67:
64:
756:Afghan Girl
113:protections
746:Ritchie333
705:Ritchie333
671:Ritchie333
498:Ritchie333
228:Ritchie333
201:upload log
125:page moves
881:talk page
789:WP:NFCC#2
642:WP:NFCC#2
334:WP:NFCC#2
330:WP:NFCC#1
305:King of ♥
258:King of ♥
209:Egghead06
142:AnomieBOT
119:deletions
73:talk page
883:or in a
863:contribs
851:unsigned
833:contribs
734:contribs
722:unsigned
404:contribs
392:unsigned
300:This one
253:WP:GETTY
193:contribs
101:contribs
75:or in a
823:Granger
598:Kingsif
583:Kingsif
553:Kingsif
538:Kingsif
490:Kingsif
475:Kingsif
462:WP:NFCC
426:Kingsif
365:Kingsif
287:Kingsif
197:uploads
183:Kingsif
169:history
90:Fastily
844:Delete
819:WP:F7b
249:Delete
188:notify
161:delete
131:rights
107:blocks
86:Delete
51:June 8
39:June 9
34:June 7
646:WP:F7
173:links
42:: -->
16:<
859:talk
827:talk
817:per
800:uidh
768:talk
764:Whpq
730:talk
689:talk
685:Whpq
654:talk
650:Whpq
609:talk
587:talk
572:talk
557:talk
542:talk
509:talk
479:talk
445:talk
430:talk
400:talk
369:talk
342:talk
338:Whpq
291:talk
282:Keep
251:per
223:Keep
213:talk
177:logs
165:talk
95:talk
31:<
821:. —
203:).
137:RfA
865:)
861:•
835:)
770:)
736:)
732:•
702:"
691:)
656:)
611:)
589:)
574:)
559:)
544:)
528:,
511:)
481:)
447:)
432:)
406:)
402:•
371:)
344:)
293:)
215:)
199:|
195:|
191:|
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
857:(
830:·
825:(
805:e
795:b
766:(
748::
744:@
728:(
698:"
687:(
664:"
652:(
607:(
600::
596:@
585:(
570:(
555:(
540:(
522::
518:@
507:(
500::
496:@
492::
488:@
477:(
458::
454:@
443:(
428:(
418::
414:@
398:(
367:(
340:(
320:♠
315:♣
310:♦
289:(
273:♠
268:♣
263:♦
211:(
185:(
179:)
159:(
146:⚡
139:)
134:·
128:·
122:·
116:·
110:·
104:·
98:·
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.