Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-22/Discussion report
Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- Non-free images are permitted solely for use within articles on Wikipedia, and not projectspace pages like this Signpost article. The actual image can be found here.
Shortly after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on 13 July 2024, a photograph captured by Evan Vucci rapidly spread across media platforms worldwide. It was uploaded to Wikipedia and a discussion subsequently was opened about whether the image aligns with its image use policy. This discussion was shared across multiple online platforms, encouraging broad participation; including, but not limited to, those unfamiliar with the policy.
America first
Wikipedia stores its database in servers located in the United States and is maintained in accordance with US law. US copyright law grants photographers exclusive rights to their original works upon creation. However, photographs taken by an employee within the scope of their employment are classified as 'work for hire'. In these cases, the employer, rather than the photographer, typically holds the copyright and all associated exclusive rights. Evan Vucci, employed by the Associated Press (AP) when he captured the photograph, is consistently credited alongside the AP, indicating a joint agreement. At the time, his camera was connected to a hotspot, enabling the photograph to be immediately sent to his editors. Fair use exceptions permit limited use of copyrighted photographs without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, and research.
The image was uploaded to Wikipedia by Bremps two hours after it was taken. Twenty-three minutes later, a discussion was opened by Di (they-them) regarding whether its inclusion on Wikipedia complied with the site's image use policy. At the time the discussion began, there was no dedicated article for the photograph. Due to the copyright restrictions on this photo, it fell under non-free content, meaning it may only be used if the article specifically discusses the photo or the latter significantly assists in depicting the event. The debate arose from the argument that the image could not be justified under fair use, as it was not essential for understanding the article on the assassination attempt and it was not discussed in it. It was also noted that fair use might be applicable if an article about the photograph itself existed.
Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy permits its use only when no free alternative is available,[NFCC1] and ensures it does not supplant the original market role of the material.[NFCC2] Usage should be minimal,[NFCC3a] involving the fewest items and only essential portions, ideally in low resolution to prevent copyright issues.[NFCC3b] Non-free content must have been previously published with permission,[NFCC4] be encyclopedic,[NFCC5] significantly enhance the article,[NFCC8] and comply with Wikipedia's media policy.[NFCC6] Non-free content must be used in at least one article,[NFCC7] and is not permitted on disambiguation pages.[NFCC9] Each use requires a detailed description page that includes the source, copyright information, an appropriate tag, and a clear rationale specific to each article.[NFCC10]
Stop the count
The discussion focused exclusively on whether the image met the NFCC requirements, not on its cultural or historical significance. Comments not supported by policy were to be given less weight by the closer of the discussion.
Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site known for discussing and criticizing Wikipedia. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion, which is usually used to deter canvassing. On Wikipedia, decisions are made through consensus and the quality of arguments, not by vote count. Attempting to influence the outcome by notifying individuals, especially those with established opinions, is considered inappropriate and undermines the consensus process. Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred.
Recent Trump-related debates on Wikipedia have seen significant participation from new accounts, with some politically-influenced votes lacking detailed policy reasoning. It has also been noted that some of these new accounts appear to be highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. Whilst it is important to treat newcomers with respect and assume good faith, this can also suggest the possibility of sockpuppet accounts. Sockpuppetry on Wikipedia involves misusing multiple accounts to deceive or manipulate, such as by disrupting discussions or vote-stacking. Editors are generally expected to use only one account to maintain accountability and trust, though there are legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. A Google search for site:[website name] "trump" "wikipedia" after:2024/07/12 before:2024/07/16 reveals that discussions on the assassination attempt attracted attention on various websites, including 4chan,[1] Reddit, and X, further stimulating discussion.
.jpg)
Supporters of the photograph's inclusion on Wikipedia cited its significant historical and educational value. It was generally agreed upon that a low resolution and cropped format mitigated potential commercial impact; Coulomb1 argued that it provided essential context for the event and the article. Supporters emphasized that the photograph's extensive media coverage and its role in enhancing understanding justify its inclusion under fair use provisions. Mhatopzz suggested that the image should remain on the site until a free alternative is available, with many proposing that a dedicated article on the photograph could support its continued use. Additionally, the photograph was later compared by an anonymous IP user to images captured at the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Some editors argued that including the image infringed copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on non-free content. They contended that the photograph served primarily as a visual aid rather than a crucial element of the article, thereby failing to meet fair use criteria. Concerns were raised about respecting the photographer's rights and the potential commercial impact. Others recommended removing the image in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and fair use standards, citing its previous removal from Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues as supporting this stance. However, it is important to note that Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use.
Editors such as Lewis Hulbert and Vivaporius advocated for retaining the photograph, emphasizing its potentially-iconic status and historical significance. Alalch E. later argued that the widespread availability of the original image and low resolution of this file support its fair use under Wikipedia's guidelines. Jason211pacem further contended that the photograph's inclusion would not adversely affect the photographer's commercial interests, given that the photographer himself posted the photograph on his own social media accounts. Lordseriouspig questioned the possibility of reaching out to the AP or Vucci to seek permission for a free licence. It was proposed that the image could warrant its own article if it achieved independent notability, which would align better with NFCC criteria.
The prevailing sentiment of comments based on image policy favoured deletion, reflecting a rigorous adherence to NFCC and fair use guidelines. Despite acknowledging the photograph's historical value, many editors emphasized compliance with copyright policies. The debate significantly shifted when an article specifically about the photograph was created by Hallucegenia, later nominated to be deleted by LilianaUwU, and the discussion being procedurally closed on the grounds that it was unlikely to be successful. The main discussion about the image was eventually closed by Soni with consensus to keep the image, stating in part:
Multiple editors preferred keeping the image but only for its own article, per NFCC#8. Since the discussion started, Trump raised fist photographs was made (and kept in AFD), for which NFCC#1 would also be true. Multiple !votes were later changed to that effect.
With the discussion comprising approximately 200,000 bytes and the image approximately 18,000 bytes, the discussion is around eleven times the size of the image. Among roughly two hundred comments, many supported retaining the content — but many lacked detailed reasoning, or based their rationales on political views rather than Wikipedia policies, resulting in their dismissal.
References
- ^ 4chan threads are typically auto-pruned after a few hours, so 4plebs is a better site to search on.
Discuss this story
Hi Svampesky, interesting story! One minor correction: The sentence "Wikipedia hosts its servers in the United States, placing it under US jurisdiction." expresses a widely-held, but actually incorrect belief about how internet law works. First, the server location is entirely irrelevant under internet law, and second, Wikipedia's servers are located around the globe (including the Netherlands, France, Singapore, and Brazil). My suggestion would be to say, "To protect the assets of the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States, the Wikipedia community adheres to US copyright law.", or something along these lines. --Gnom (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump raised-fist photographs was created by Levivich, not Hallucegenia. Hallucegenia's version, initially at Photograph of Donald Trump after shooting, [1] was quickly redirected. Levivich independently created Trump raised fist photographs nearly ten hours later, and then, seeing an article had already been attempted, effectively history-merged Hallucegenia's attempt into his own. [2] The reason the two versions appear similar is that they both reused content from the main Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article. —Cryptic 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please add a note at about how the Commons' policy differs from that of the English Wikipedia insofar as that project categorically rejects fair use (as required by the Wikimedia Foundation). This is why the Commons file was deleted: It was a file for which no valid license can be provided and that's the end of it, there's no fair use discussion to be had there. An average reader will not understand the difference between the Commons and the English Wikipedia, and will probably be curious as to why one project deleted when another did not (the answer is pretty banal, and as such, it should be demystified). Regards—Alalch E. 02:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]