The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Philippe Pétain? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. For me, the current image is the better option as it is in colour and has better quality. This allows viewers to pay more attention to details. However, picture C is also a good option. - Luna Cielus Luna Cielus (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

A: I think Pétain is most known for his role in the Vichy regime which eliminates the WWI-era image in C. On the choice between A and B, I think A wins out because Pétain's wartime cult of personality often emphasised depictions wearing the kepi. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A per Brigade Piron. People recognise him by his hat; in image B he looks like any old boring politician from the 20th century. And image C draws attention to his success as a military commander instead of his role as a dictator and collaborator, for which he is notorious. Trakking (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not B; it is a run-of-the-mill, could-be-anybody picture. While i disagree with Brigade Piron above in that Pétain is well-known for his WWI activities as well as the WWII collaboration, so C would be acceptable, A is the best choice ~ it illustrates his appearance, it shows the kepi, and it is a clear image. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A: simply the most clear.Moxy🍁 21:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A I really don't understand this obsession with creating RFCs about this topic. Are we approaching 10 the past couple of months? Almost all of them ending with the same way. There's nothing wrong with the status quo. Nemov (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait—has there actually been 10 RfCs about this particular Infobox picture? Alexysun (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun No, on various other biographies. There's a few open at the moment. Nemov (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A: High quality, colored image during the most prominent point of his lifetime. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support C if A gets deleted from Commons ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A per the commons file description, "this work may not be in the public domain in the United States". We cannot use such images on English Wikipedia per copyright policy, which supersedes local consensus. It's unfortunate that many commons images break their own copyright policy, but that is a different conversation. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe the photo is ineligible for commons, then it is prudent to nominate said file for deletion on commons itself. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with Commons is that deleting images is hit or miss because there are a significant number of users who don't agree with some of the copyright policies. See below for an explanation of why the image is not out of copyright in the US, which is the only thing that matters for enwiki copyright policy. Please keep in mind that, if you are adding an image to an enwiki article, it's not enough for the image to be hosted on Commons—you must verify that it follows all English Wikipedia copyright policies. (t · c) buidhe 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  A  Immediate procedural close, best quality, most typical. If the image is not in the public domain, that is a complete deal-breaker for this Rfc, however: I am not a lawyer, but 1) "may not be in the public domain" is not a deal-breaker, and 2) my recollection is that copyright holders must defend their rights or they lose them (like Bayer lost "aspirin"). The Commons page offers a clear invitation to any copyright holder, if they exist, to apply to have the image removed, and explains how to do that right on the page. Until that happens, I believe we are free to use the image. The image has been there for three years, is in use in 27 Wikipedias, and six articles at en-wiki, without apparently eliciting any complaint. If there is a question about copyright, anyone may raise a question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC) updated to 'Immediate procedural close'; see comment below. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is doubt about the copyright status, it is assumed to be copyrighted. Technically the precautionary principle is a commons policy, but in this case there is no evidence it is public domain according to us law—it doesn't seem like the French copyright would have expired by 1996 which it would need to be public domain here.

  There are millions of Commons images up for years that don't satisfy the copyright policy. Don't trust an image being on Commons because most encyclopedia editors and Commons users know nothing about copyright expiration.

  Patents are lost if not enforced, but that is not the case with copyrights. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment nobody here (afaik) is a U.S. copyright lawyer, and imho, this Rfc cannot go on while there is an unresolved issue about a policy with legal implications affecting this Rfc that no one here is qualified to comment on. I will request an immediate procedural close of this Rfc on this basis, as I see no way for a closer to evaluate a consensus in the current circumstances. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980 Hi Emiya, I'm interested to know what you have against the current portrait, or the reason you brought up this as an RfC? Currently the photo is A. What is wrong with photo A in your opinion? Alexysun (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: According to MOS:LEADIMAGE , "lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic." I think both B and C serve as more "natural" representations of Philippe Pétain than an artistic portrait clearly designed to lionize him as a statesman. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980 Dumb policy tbh in my opinion. Are they going to remove Churchill's picture now? Literally called The Roaring Lion. Alexysun (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: The image to which you are referring is a posed photo taken of Churchill, not a hand-drawn portrait as in the present case. I should also point out that Churchill's legacy is significantly less ignominious than Pétain's. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980 I doubt it's hand-drawn. I'm assuming it was originally taken in black and white and filled in with color manually. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexysun In that case, the original black-and-white photograph would be preferred. That's my opinion anyhow. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, besides the copyright issues with this image, I don't agree with color for its own sake, only if the color is from the original photograph and an actual representation of the subject's appearance. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "natural", in the WP:LEADIMAGE style guideline, is meant to imply "doesn't lionize him as a statesman". The meaning is closer to "not overly contrived". Where senior politicians are concerned, an official portrait that "lionizes" them is "appropriate".

The same sentence in the MOS that says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" goes on to say that they should "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Official portraits are definitely used for similar purposes and fully comply with the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cast my vote for C. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A has just recently been nominated for deletion on copyright grounds. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd recommend withdrawing RFC. A simple discussion can sort out a replacement image if A is deleted. Getting everyone to change their votes would be more of a time sink. I'm fine with whatever that discussion produces. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is this RfC still happening? Has the image changed? Someone has described A as a portrait, but presently I am seeing a photograph. If the options have changed, then the RfC votes are now inaccurate?Brocade River Poems (She/They) 18:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A - the current image is by far the best quality. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You see the problem with assuming Commons keeping an image means it is OK to use for copyright purposes. In the discussion, one of the admins noted for disregarding Commons copyright policies decided to close as keep, despite evidence to the contrary (compare his statement to what it actually says in c:COM:PRP). It's irrelevant whether the copyright holder can be located or plans to enforce their copyright. Any comments here that don't address the issue of whether the image is free to use according the US copyright law (per WP:Copyrights) should be discarded by the closer. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe there's an issue with the deletion decision you should look into to challenging the close. Your opinion about the close is rather irrelevant in regards to this discussion. Nemov (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what decision is made on Commons. We can only use the image here if it complies with English Wikipedia copyright policies, which is not the case—and nobody has even made a policy based argument why it is. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think it bears mentioning that a clear majority of editors (4 to 1) voted in favor of the image's deletion prior to this admin's decision to unilaterally close the discussion and make a "keep" ruling. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiya1980, just fyi: the discussion is not closed, it is open, and anyone may feel free to continue discussing. If it were closed, the whole conversation would be boxed with a rectangular border and shaded background color, along with a statement at the top that the discussion is closed. Since none of that is present, the discussion is not closed.

What has happeed, is that the Rfc reached the standard expiry age of one month, which triggered Legobot to remove the Rfc header in this edit. At some point, an uninvolved editor may come along and close it, and until that happens, anyone is welcome to add their thoughts.

Finally, if in mentioning that "an admin" decided to close it you were referring to User:buidhe, they are not an admin. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking in regards to the deletion discussion on Wikimedia Commons concerning the lede image, NOT the Rfc. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This close was disscussed in more detail here[1] and it appears there's a consensus to keep the image. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is unlikely that Petain's lede image will be deleted in the foreseeable future, can somebody go ahead and close this Rfc?Emiya1980 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was originally planning to close this, but after receiving advice, I will instead vote not A.
  I think there remain difficult questions about whether this work is public domain both in France and the United States despite the relevant Commons discussions. On the French side, it seems unclear that this work meets the criteria necessary to enter the public domain 70 years after publication. The information box asserts that the author is anonymous, but I see no indication of this at the source, and while the identity of the author is unknown today, this is quite distinct from the real requirement that their identity must never have been disclosed. This is more difficult to establish, and I see no evidence establishing it. On the American side, I am dubious that {{PD-US-alien property}} applies. It is clear that the image in question is a colored version of https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10336769n/f25.item, and while it is plausible that the Vichy government held the copyright to the original photo (though this remains unproven), I doubt the French government colored it, and I suspect that coloring a black and white photograph is sufficiently creative to grant a derivative copyright (although input on this point would be appreciated) which the US government would not have seized.
  Although enwiki doesn't explicitly have an equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, policy does forbid linking to works you suspect contain copyright violations (WP:COPYLINK); it is surely implicitly forbidden to directly use such material. The closer of this discussion needs to make a determination about the copyright status of this work, and given Commons' extensive problems, I don't think simply saying "it was okay with Commons, and that's good enough for me" is an adequate examination of the issue. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding the copyright situation, it may or may not be helpful to note that the English Wikipedia only requires an image to be in the public domain in the US; while the copyright status in France is an issue for Commons, we can even host images that are free in the US but not in their country of origin here locally. So at least any copyright discussion at the English Wikipedia can focus on American copyright, while the argument of anonymous publication or not should be moot for use at the English Wikipedia. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]