The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LevellerNo26.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bluehotel ( | contribs).

• Tagged as "no rationale" but uploader argued that the text "This is a cover of a historically significant publication, which no longer exists, and where the copyright owner has long since dissolved, and hence has no interest to protect." is sufficient to explain why 3 different magazine covers are needed to decorate this article. I disagree. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may disagree, but the most substantive grounds are given by wikipedia in the relevant template that magazine covers used in this context are thought to be fair use. This cover is used solely in the context of an article about a historically important British magazine. As for the use of three different examples of the magazine's cover: this is to give some sense of the range and tone of the publication, for which there is no other location on the web where these can be seen. Thus wikipedia provides a service unavailable anywhere else. Why you would use the word "decorate", I can't imagine. I note that you marked this for deletion even when only one image was uploaded, and even while I was editing the article template to receive it. I'm struggling quite to see where you are coming from on this.Bluehotel (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the use of *a* magazine cover to identify the subject of the article. The question is, what justifies the unique use of three different covers in this article? (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is simply no detectable copyright issue. There would be no meaningful issue if The Leveller entry included thumbnails of ALL it's covers. And I am contemplating uploading some page spreads also, to give readers yet further information about this magazine, how it was designed, how it related visually to its period in the 1970s, and indeed many other perfectly legitimate aspects of its design and editorial content. Far from decorating the page, the covers, as the text beside them makes clear, validly illustrate and reference issues which are not accessible from any other source. Assuming you are not on the Wikipedia Preservation of Bandwidth and Server Space Sub-Committee, I find it hard to understand your interest. Bluehotel (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LevellerNo27.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bluehotel ( | contribs).

• Tagged as "no rationale" but uploader argued that the text "This is a cover of a historically significant publication, which no longer exists, and where the copyright owner has long since dissolved, and hence has no interest to protect." is sufficient to explain why 3 different magazine covers are needed to decorate this article. I disagree. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may disagree, but the most substantive grounds are given by wikipedia in the relevant template that magazine covers used in this context are thought to be fair use. This cover is used solely in the context of an article about a historically important British magazine. As for the use of three different examples of the magazine's cover: this is to give some sense of the range and tone of the publication, for which there is no other location on the web where these can be seen. Thus wikipedia provides a service unavailable anywhere else. Why you would use the word "decorate", I can't imagine.Bluehotel (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:$5 Northampton,Pa 54on78inches.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cdg2118 ( | contribs).

• Derivative work MER-C 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:$5 Western Bank ,Pa the Legend of William Tell ,54 on 78 inches.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cdg2118 ( | contribs).

• Derivative work MER-C 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:091009 Wilson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevertigo ( | contribs).

• Fails NFCC 1, 2, and 8. Replaceable by text or a free image of "Joe" Wilson. Photo was taken by a photographer for a press agency, so we aren't really respecting competing use. The photo itself is not the subject of sufficient (or really any) critical commentary--remember, that is the hurdle for NFCC 8 the photo is the subject of discussion, but not the event. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transposed event and photo. Minor correction. Protonk (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I strongly disagree with the claim that this fails NFCC 1. Since the image is the image of Wilson making the remark in question, there's no free equivalent. A free image of Wilson at another time would not be equivalent. Failures of 2 and 8 may be more important although I suspect an argument for meeting 8 could be made. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I likewise diagree with NFCC 2 and can make a case for 8. NFCC 2 deals with its usage in news media. Its "original market role" is not impinged, as it was suitable for *current news media before it was posted here later, and it still remains suitable for *archived news media, where it remains. NFCC 8 deals with "contextual significance," with the requirement ".. used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It's inclusion does in fact increase my understanding of the topic, and its omission would in fact be detrimental to that understanding. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 04:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an image owned by a press agency whose primary goal is to sell it to downstream users. Our use here competes with their use. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you then agree that it meets NFCC 8? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? Oh, because I didn't respond to that part? Honestly there is no responding to it. You are simply making an assertion of your preferences. It doesn't do me any good to gainsay it. I could respond by passing along the 'photo of a verbal utterance' argument below and noting that the text works perfectly fine in describing the moment. I could also note that NFCC 8 is a bar set deliberately high. But you would just respond by telling me that the understanding of the event is increased because of the photo. How? Could the reader not be made to understand that Wilson was seated, opened his mouth and pointed as he shouted? Protonk (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Why are we stealing the copyrighted work here exactly?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not. The owners still have it. If fair use applies (no opinion either way), we are not even violating their copyright. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was, of course not a serious claim of "stealing." Thieves, for example take things and don't give them back. WP gives back to photographers every day WP uses their pics. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. By not paying them. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A rare example (IMO) of a genuinely justified fair use for a photo of a living individual: it captures a moment which is widely considered as significant to the career of the subject, and since the moment is unlikely ever to be repeated there is no obvious alternative. Keep the resolution low and give correct attribution. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear example of justified fair use. By far the most noteworthy incident of Rep. Wilson's career; no free image alternative. Vidor (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — this screenshot depicts a unique, non-repeatable historical event that is of great significance in the article subject's career. It cannot reasonably be replaced with a free image. If this is a screenshot of the televised speech (which appears to be the case), then it meets the requirement of minimal use since it is 1 frame (~1/30 sec.) from a much longer work. *** Crotalus *** 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete- fails NFCC2, as it is a current press image, and fails NFCC8, as what he looked like when shouting this is not of any importance. Yes, to quote Guy, "it captures a moment which is widely considered as significant to the career of the subject, and since the moment is unlikely ever to be repeated there is no obvious alternative". But that doesn't mean it's needed. By all means, discuss the moment, but just because something is significant, does not mean it needs to be illustrated. We don't have a free image of the egging/punching incident involving John Prescott- though this is a significant event in his career, and obviously worthy of discussion in the article, an image is not needed. The same is true here. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Does this image belong to FOX NEWS or the US Government? The House and Senate chambers have permanent television cameras and I doubt that each network gets to setup there own cameras. If you switch television networks while the President is speaking, you notice all networks use the same images. (The networks can select which camera feed to use at any particular time.) Here are the House rules on broadcast coverage. [1] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, wondered the same thing. This took place in a U.S. Federal government building during a federal event. If the video footage is a work of the U.S. government, then it is not subject to copyright at all. *** Crotalus *** 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It neither belongs to FOX nor the government. FOX paid a press agency for the right to use the photo and it is that press agency (and the contracted photographer) who holds the copyright. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright owner Here's the Getty Images catalog info "Editorial image #90534255 / 09 Sep 2009 / President Addresses Joint Session Of Congress O... By: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Alarm bells always go off when people start using the word "needed." Well, *nothing* in Wikipedia is "needed," but removal would make coverage of a topic worse. That's why "significant" is a better guideline to use. Anyway, this picture fits the "non-repeatable historic event" criteria. If a "free" photograph of the same event is found, sure, delete, but otherwise this is a perfectly legitimate case of fair use. This event was indeed "significant" to Joe Wilson, likely the one thing he will be remembered for in the public. So. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is very clear[2] the copyright of this photo is held by AFP and not the U.S. government. The rationalizations for keeping it otherwise are not enough to justify using non-free content. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that clear? The article does not contain a copyright statement. It credits the source, AFP, but that is not a statement of copyright. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but it at least makes it very much more likely that the image is copyrighted. Better to be safe than sorry, and err on the side of assuming that a photograph a news agency is taking credit for is actually theirs. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have to agree with SnowFire. Further, I can understand how some Republicans on this site want it off. The fact that is that this breach is one of most notable in the House in recent history. I am glad we have an actual photograph. The photograph shows just how far people will go to spread their propaganda to prevent reform. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - note that in my fair use rationale, I mentioned that we can and should make efforts to find a free alternative, if there is one. Certainly we can coordinate efforts to find one. Until a free substitute is found, sufficient rationale for fair use has been established for this one. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - but not for the reasons detailed by nominator. I don't see how a photograph of a verbal moment can have any encyclopaedic value. There is nothing in the photo to indicate it is about what it says it's about. Yes there is verification, but the photo adds nothing to the information. If this was a photo to illustrate the subject then fine, but to illustrate him shouting "You lie", it does nothing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an example of the "caption bubble argument?" That a still photo must show spoken words spelled out in the King's English, just as they do in the funnies? I like it just for its absurdity alone. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ? clarification of policy The boilerplate in the "non-free historic" licensing template includes the wording about the constraint Protonk (to my relatively uninformed ears) is referring to— that fair use would apply only if the image/photo itself is the subject of discussion

That constraint is not mentioned in the "non-free fair use" template ... which I discovered when the uploader changed from "non-free historic" to the "non-free fair use" after I put on a fair use dispute tag referring to the wording of the historic copyright license boilerplate as the rationale ... which (as I've mentioned) is not in the second. I was asked where is this policy you are referring to? :) And I don't have any answer other than the boilerplate of the "non-free-historic" licensing tag. Question: Where is that policy? AND does it in fact apply to all copyrighted images—if only to "historic" ones ... why the heck would that be? LOL Protonk appears to be saying that constraint is generally applicable (I hope so). Does it? and Where is it (other than in a template)? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can't make heads or tails of your comment with all that underlining and bolding. But the reason that the photo must be of historic significance for the historical FUR is because that is a boilerplate rationale written so that folks can slap it on 'historic' images. If you have an image which you are purporting to be historic (which is the subtext of the claims made above) then you may add that boilerplate or you may add a specific justification of your own. Should you add a specific justification then it still behooves you to tell us why it is important that wikipedia have a photo like this in the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Smiling that I am responding to a response answering a question that someone "can't make heads of tails of" because of the formatting that makes it easier to skim :) ... The disagreement we see for this item, I posit, arises from the fact the strongest rationale for deletion lies not in NFCC#8, but in the Template:Non-free_historic_image boilerplate's strict constraint which (parenthetically) appears to derive from NFCC#2—with [which] is quite open to interpretation in policy, but not in boilerplate. The boilerplate gives a clear, strict basis for denying fair use. NFCC#2 does not. I have, of course, a much more elaborately formatted version of this (with cquotes of elements causing confusion), but have withheld that response given your preference for less formatting. :) If there continues to be confusion at that nexus, I will consider further elaboration of this point. Cheers. (P.S., I support deletion) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Irreplaceable (and quickly becoming iconic) depiction of the "you lie" incident, which is well within the bounds of legitimate non-free media use.--ragesoss (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per J Milburn, particularly on the NFCC2 point. -- Y not? 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only arguments for keeping this are that it is interesting, irreplaceable, historic etc. Unfortunately, using the picture is also theft. On many of the principles argued here, a photographer who accomplishes the landmark picture of their career, perhaps with expenditure of money, risk and time, loses coyright ownership because it is such an important picture that others believe they have a right to take it away from him. Bluehotel (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (unless {{Non-free with permission}}—Consider that Tank Man photo rationale specifies that image itself is discussed, but Wikipedia still sought written permission), i.e., ask Getty Images). WP:NFCC #2 and #8 (nod to #3B) COMMENT (re the 10 criteria, ALL of which must be met)

  The brief wording of NFCC #2 is insufficient for anyone but an appeals court judge who hears intellectual property cases to truly grasp the implications, and I am not one of those ... so I rely on the parenthetical in Template:Non-free_historic_image for the clarification that the image itself (not the event) must be the subject of discussion: (Bold emphasis in the template)

Waving hands at NFCC#2 and saying, oh, we won't have any effect on that is not creating a persuasive rationale. (But let us acknowledge that the policy page as written leads to just that response.) For those new to WP copyright (like myself), let us remember that if only one item of the 10 of NFCC fails, that is sufficient for deletion, but continuing ...

NFCC #8 - While some may feel the exact expression on Wilson's face and vigor of finger point are an element in a full understanding of the event, many would argue a photograph of that aspect is not necessary. I would further argue that the photograph leads to misunderstanding by creating what can be seen as a "heroic" shout of an individual ... when the actual event experienced by the global audience was the reaction to a breach of protocol. Even if the demand is that the photo be of Wilson himself, a more proportionate perspective would be preferable, as in this alternative photo from AP Photo/The Washington Post, Melina Mara.

NFCC #3B - Even if the image under discussion was used, would 3B not suggest that the image be cropped to this

BOTTOM LINE As I read on a legal website, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent litigating what "fair use" means (including much dancing around that word "transformative), but in general let it be noted that U.S. copyright law gives high protection to images ... and that "educational use" does not imply global digital distribution for perpetuity ... and many of us (including me) don't know much LOL — but based on what I can make out of the rules here: Delete. (Unless we get permission.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: On CNN this morning there was a split-screen snapshot created of two images mentioned above: podium reaction[left]/tight-cropped shout[right] to convey the incident. Perhaps a screen-capture from CNN of that, OR, an editor here can create a low-res composite of similar crops. The "fair use" issue is of a different character there (not to mention other issues), but that may point toward a solution if an image is desired. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Temporary over/under low-res composite of two AP images for discussion: Washington Post, AP (fair use asserted for temporary use in discussion) SUGGESTION/PURPOSE Presented only to illustrate options in capturing event—if image seems important. (NOTE: Both these small/low-res images are reduced from AP/bottom and Washington Post/top.) --Proofreader77 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) PPS: Better Washington Post image Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Further to my "Keep" comment above, this image has been reused and transformed in a number of ways since the incident; this is in part what I mean by "quickly becoming iconic". As such, the article can and should discuss the photograph itself.--ragesoss (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The removal of the photo from the article has greatly diminished my ability to visualize the events surrounding the controversy of said subjects outburst. Now I must rely on the images of Obama, Pelozi, and Biden reacting to the outburst.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image fails NFCC8. The only information imparted by the image is what Wilson looked like as he shouted. We can read that he shouted (we can even read that he pointed as he did so). We do not need an image of the action to understand that he shouted. ÷seresin 04:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And how do we know he wasn't flipping the bird to Obama? Or was making some sort of racially offensive gesture?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One still photograph does not illustrate he didn't. (Although I must say I'm curious regarding what a "racially offensive" [to African-Americans] gesture would look like.) But also be aware that WP:NFCC has 10 elements that ALL must be met to use a copyrighted image we don't have permission to use. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler salute?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this, but keep instead only an extremely low resolution, cropped version.
  ..... Protonk's assertion of violations of WP:NFCC #s 1, 2 and 8 is commonplace in WP.
  ..... As to NFCC #1: no evidence whatsoever has been presented that there exists a free-licensed equivalent.
  ..... As to NFCC #2: While the market role of this photo is for the company owning the distribution rights to get paid for conveying a particular image of Joe Wilson's outburst in photographic form with adequate resolution to be commercially viable, the fact is that it's all over the web in numerous settings and in a wide variety of derivative forms. I'd suggest that if it's kept, it be only on the condition that a very low resolution be used, per WP:NFCC 3-B. The current image is about 80 kb-- offhand I'd advocate that a cropped version with a lowest possible JPEG resolution of, say, less than 1/10 of that, or 8kB wouldn't in the slightest way impinge on the market role of providing photographs of adequate quality to sell commercially. In today's world, the owner of a photo that's been put out on the web makes money by providing quality photos, and makes no money whatsoever from very extremely low resolution copies of copies of those photos.
  ..... As to WP:NFCC #8, it's something of a "red herring". Theoretically, no images at all are necessary in WP, which could have chosen early in its development to include no images at all and instead provide only links to images hosted elsewhere. Those who are more text-oriented can always argue words alone are adequate, while those who are more visually oriented or who learn best from a combination of textual and visual renditions will tend to argue the other way.
  ..... Thus, considering these factors, I advocate that it be deleted, but to leave open the option of replacing it with a cropped, very low resolution version of this same photo, which is an image that has become in its own minor way a notable aspect of recent U.S. national history. .... Kenosis (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading over the above arguments, it seems to me that there is consensus that there is no free alternative, and NFCC 3-9 all seem to my eyes to be a given. Of course it meets our usual content guidelines, of course it's been extensively published elsewhere, of course Wilson's words & facial expressions & gestures were highly notable, receiving intense media scrutiny. The only question I think a substantive debate might exist on is NFCC #2-- the effect it could have commercial repercussions for the photographer.

My legal response is "given how readily available the image is to anyone with a web-browser, a low res image on wikipedia is unlikely to significantly impact the sales of the image to media outlets." When Time or CNN go to talk about Joe Wilson, rest assured, they're still going to use the image, regardless of whether it's on Wikipedia. A google image search shows that the image is VERY widely available outside of the paying media. No one's bank statement is going to even notice whether Wikipedia publishes it or not. Effect on commerce is negligible.

Meanwhile, my emotional response is this: this was federal property owned by the people of the united states. Photographers were allowed in to fulfill the legitimate purpose of documenting the event for the purpose of informing people about the workings of their government. There are lots of photographers vying for these limited spots. Copyright law is not absolute, and photographers walk in there knowing that if anything too newsworthy happens, they're going to make money off the deal, but because they are being given a special invitation to participate, they're should know that they're covering newsworthy events, not a studio modeling session. The implicit agreement is that they are there to document the event, so they can show the whole world what happened. If a photographer doesn't like that deal, nobody is forcing them to take it-- we all know there is an entire legion of skilled photographers who would happily jump at the chance to cover a congressional joint address without any expectation of copyright. And you know what-- I bet a federal judge would agree that there is a "compelling state interest" in publishing recording of the the democratically elected representatives as they perform their duties. Personally, I'm surprised they even let the photography people keep the copyright at all-- they certainly were under no legal obligation to give that to him, whatever copyright he claims is, plain a simple, a gift given to him by the people of the US, and he should should consider himself lucky to have gotten the coveted spot in the first place-- besides, we DID warn him ahead of time that his copyright would never ever apply to fair uses. And informing citizens about their government is about as fair use as it gets.

Admittedly, my legal opinion will probably be more helpful here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal is only partially relevant. WP:NFCC is quite stricter than the law. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would just like to say I think it should stay as this was a big talked about event, so it does serve a lot of purpose in my mind. Thanks. America69 (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; article shows no--nor does the IDP reference any--requisite reliably sourced critical commentary on this particular copyrighted image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails any of NFCC#1, #2, and #8. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Global-War-on-Terrorism-Exp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RockStar31 ( | contribs).

• Image not in use on any page. Replaced by "File:Streamer gwotE.PNG". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grampian.cars.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PedroMcA ( | contribs).

• Image not in use on any page. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gugseon Medal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EHDI5YS ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "File:Gugseon Security Medal Ribbon.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gwangbog Medal ribbon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EHDI5YS ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "File:Gwangbog Security Medal Ribbon.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMH-466 insignia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMH-466 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMM-165-2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMM-165 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halos Tour - Irving Plaza - 5a.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grassisb ( | contribs).

• Image is not in use on any page. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heavy-haulers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMH-462 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hgk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fmitha ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:Hgk.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hma775 insig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMLA-775.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmh-465.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMH-465 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmh361c insig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMH-361 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmh463.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMH-463 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmla169 insig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 ( | contribs).

• Redundant image no longer in use. Replaced by "Image:HMLA-169 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 07:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abc whitney 117644 SF84262 090901 ssv.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nk3play2 ( | contribs).

• Fair use image not used on any page. miranda 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tagged as orphaned fair use.--Rockfang (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geist,Cord.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DreamingLady ( | contribs).

• Fair use image not necessary in article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geist,Monster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DreamingLady ( | contribs).

• Fair use image whose subject is not mentioned in the article, and is also unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geist,Gigi.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DreamingLady ( | contribs).

• Fair use image of a minor character, unnecessary in article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. NW (Talk) 02:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammed Ajmal Kasab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nichalp ( | contribs).

• Not a particularly iconic image, nor does it seem necessary to identify the subject of the article 2008 Mumbai attacks, which has plenty of images already. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fair use of the image in the article is justified since it is the only image of the attackers in the article. It was taken by Sebastian D'Souza, a photo-editor for a Mumbai newspaper, who happened to be at the scene at CST railway station in Mumbai during the 2008 terrorist attacks and the image was widely disseminated by both print media and TV channels in India and abroad. As far as I know there is no other published image of any of terrorists during the Mumbai attacks, apart from the ones shot at CST, and this image (with various croppings) has been published by 100's (possibly 1000's) of sources. It shows the person, age, demeanor, weapons and equipment carried by one of the terrorists during the attack, and is irreplaceable by any equivalent free image. Here is an article in the New york Times, about the image itself, which calls it a "singular iconic image of the attacks". Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This image clearly satisfies Non-free image policies. No free equivalent can be generated. This is the only image of the terrorist shot by the photographer Sebastian D'Souza at the VT station in Bombay, where many people were killed by the terrorist in the picture on 26 November 2008. This is a very historical, important, and encyclopedic image for the article. 122.169.3.64 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The image is "iconic" of the attacks, as the NYT article says, and there is no alternative free image (or any alternative image at all) of equivalent import. This image is the one that has been most broadcast and published in all media. A fair-use rationale can also be writen for Ajmal Kasab, from which this was recently removed. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not think deletion is justified at all Shyamsunder (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLOW-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Angryhaggis ( | contribs).

• OB, replaced by SLOW-logo.png Angryhaggis (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.