File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg

Not sure this is fair use

The problem is that the image as reproduced here is (1) fairly large and (2) is used for precisely the purpose that it would have been used anyway. This differs from situations where the fair use is different from the original (like parody). Also, keep in mind that the journalists covering the perp walk reportedly waited outside for as long as 15 hours to get a photo of Strauss-Kahn's perp walk. Journalists who work incredibly hard waiting for the right moment to take unique, historically important photos tend to be extremely protective of their intellectual property rights. Bob Tur's notorious litigation battles to protect his IP rights to the Reginald Denny beating footage are the quintessential example. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

300px is the upper limit we generally allow for fair use. I had to reduce this slightly as it was. As for transformative use, the FUC say nothing about permissible fair use needing to be transformative. This is justified under FUC 8: "... its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". As such it has four paragraphs of accompanying commentary pertinent to the image itself.

Journalists usually don't own the copyright to their images, their employers do, and in any event there were many photographers from many organizations present so the image is hardly unique to any of them to justify being that litigious over. It's not like Joe Rosenthal being the only photographer at the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

"Copyright owned by X" is not a speedy rationale. All non-free images are copyrighted by someone. As for fair use, it's possible to contest the rationales given, but that's a topic for WP:FFD or the article talk page. Considering this image was illegal in France and is a topic covered in the article, I think there's a case to be made, at least, which means it isn't speedyable. --SnowFire (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also since I see this image was brought up for deletion in a process twice before, this is extra non-speedyable. Speedy deletion processeses can't happen after an article / file / etc. has survived a formal deletion process once. SnowFire (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns are an exception to the rule about prior deletion discussions, and the prior discussions did not squarely address the specific issue here (press agency photos). The article text also does not address the particular image involved, a matter related to the copyright issue which was similarly not addressed in the previous deletion discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From whence do you get the idea that "the article text also does not address the particular image involved"?:

The police department's handling of the Strauss-Kahn case was heavily criticized in his native France. Élisabeth Guigou, who as French minister of justice in 2000 had lobbied successfully for the passage of a law that forbids the publication of any images of an identifiable defendant in handcuffs who has not yet been convicted, criticized the walk, stating: "I found that image to be incredibly brutal, violent and cruel...I don't see what the publication of images of this type adds." Another former member of the French cabinet, Jack Lang, Minister of Culture in the early 1980s, likened the perp walk to a lynching. French Senator Jean-Pierre Chevènement, a longtime acquaintance of Strauss-Kahn's, wrote on his blog that "The heart can only contract before these humiliating and poignant images ... A horrible global lynching! And what if it were all a monstrous injustice?" The French newspaper Le Monde editorialized: "When one of the world's most powerful men is turned over to press photos, coming out of a police station handcuffed, hands behind his back, he is already being subjected to a sentence which is specific to him...Is it necessary that a man's fame deprive him of his presumption of innocence in the media? Because if they must assuredly be equal before the justice system, all men are not equal before the press."

References

• I checked those references out already. None of them refer specifically to the disputed Getty image, but to the large set of photos taken during the perp walk. If anything, those references demonstrate that alternatives to using such an actively marketed image exist. For example, a Google search turns up 15,000 potentially pertinent video hits and 8,000 image hits. It's hardly unlikely that, say, a video screenshot could be used more appropriately under our nonfree content policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're engaging in the kind of hairsplitting that gives our fair-use policy a bad name. There were lots of images of the perp walk available since there were many news agencies there. Since most of the photographers were standing right next to each other, those photographs are largely indistinguishable from each other ... any would serve to illustrate the commentary in question. I chose this one because it was of a size where it could be reduced and still remain legible. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not simply "our fair use policy". It's the Wikimedia Foundation's policy regarding nonfree content, which takes "fair use" as a necessary (but not sufficient} standard for encyclopedic use. The WMF has set the standard for us, to be sure that such content can be reused by others. Most press agency photos fail that standard, and your pointing out, as I did, that there are many alternatives available pretty much seals the case against unauthorized use of an image from a licensor who aggressively protects its copyright interests. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither Foundation policy, which our fair-use policy has long been in accord with, nor our fair-use policy, would require the deletion of this particular image. We make no distinction between rights holders based on; AP is no different to us than a Flickr user. As to "a licensor who aggressively protects its copyright interests", see WP:MIGHTSUE.

In order to "protect commercial opportunities" for the rights holders, per FUC 3b, "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". This picture satisfies the commonly held standard that fair-use images generally should be displayed here at 300px or less in order to avoid infringing the rights-holders' potential future commercial opportunities.

When we choose to use a fair-use image, once all the criteria have been met, the only further one is editorial. This image shows DSK and the cops full-on along with his linked hands, making it a particularly apt choice for the subject.

I still fail to see any grounds for deletion here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you can raise the issue in FFD #3 then. What's the rush? SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... See the other two deletion debates. --Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)