Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14

July 14

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} oder {{subst:csp|username}}.

Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article. Scu ba (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Non-free historic image}} usually requires sourced commentary on the image itself, not what it illustrates. WP:UUI#7. —Cryptic 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a historical image. This is similar to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Raising the Flag at Ground Zero. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump". Di (they-them) (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these examples are compelling. The former is in the public domain and the latter is only used in articles discussing the photo itself, rather than the articles on the September 11 attacks oder New York City's recovery. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point. USA1855 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this. BarntToust (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LuxembourgLover (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable. HandIsNotNookls (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HandIsNotNookls: (That image is actually in the public domain for failure to renew, but I agree with your general point.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation (US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link, I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~ TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch. Jan-Janko (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the most notable image and is shown throughout the media (or different variations of Trump raising his fist) so it is most informative to readers and the most relevant image to display in the infobox. Bill Williams 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable and relevant is not the same as being justified under NFCC. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"or different variations of Trump raising his fist" – so it's highly likely that a free alternative exists or could be created (WP:NFCC #1). Adabow (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo. BarntToust (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "non-free media"? Marcus Markup (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established. Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Vucci is a photographer at AP, so the image is not acceptable as fair use as a press agency photograph unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, as noted at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually makes it a speedy - WP:F7b. I'm not about to be the admin to push the button, though. —Cryptic 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyrighted image — 48 JCL 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above - it's too soon to be sure that free media will not be available, and I don't think the photo is strictly necessary to significantly increase understanding about the topic. As such, fair use shouldn't be claimed. Gazamp (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyrighted image, political propaganda. LucasR muteacc (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp×g 🗯️ 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away). Adabow (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyrighted image at event with many attendees, likely another acceptable photo of the event will be uploaded to commons in the near future. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a unique photo of a historical event, as recognized by Politico and the The Daily Beast [1], and the fist in air was highlighted by virtually every media organization, though they didn't specifically mention the photo. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article [2]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article [3].

Now recognized by Axios. [4] Personisinsterest (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique. BarntToust (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture posted by Don Jr [5], noted by many orgs. [6][7][8] and more. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while only hours after the incident, RS have already described the photo as -at least- very important. Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too. Juxlos (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too - that's more of a reason to delete. Commercial value of a current image. Can't claim fair use. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we can't host it here without licensing it from the photographer. Nosferattus (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it explains an aftermath of the shots fired. Cwater1 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument to keep. We are discussing the fair use of the image. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen per others. Historic is quite a stretch, as this event happened only a few hours ago. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp×g 🗯️ 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not that the event is not historic (obviously it is, we have an entire article about it). To meet the criteria for non-free content, the image must not be possible to be replaced by free content - i.e. if the image itself was the topic of an article. Adabow (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1). WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --RicoRico (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant. Nosferattus (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some text about it. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) —Cryptic 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: other. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 01:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth noting that no free images have at this point been released. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image. Mhatopzz (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.

If it's not covered under fair use, can't the photographer give permission? 204.237.0.170 (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete, WP:F7. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this image is clearly justified under fair use rationale; there is no similar free image. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, they exist. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no similar free image"—It's too early to say that. There were reported to be 50,000 people attending. WP:NFCC#1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's highly likely that there is another photo of the event which is free or could be made free by the owner. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users claiming this is an historic image: the only way this is going to get kept is if somebody adds sourced commentary about the image itself to the article; it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand bolded keeps in a row here. Policy's as unambiguous as it gets on this point. —Cryptic 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to keep. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I re-read it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be noted, this doesn't just mean commentary about "Trump was photo'd with his fist raised", it would have to be about this exact photo at this point in time, need RS's talking about Evan Vucci's Trump photo. Because it's still eminently possible there's a photographer out there who took one of the many similar images and could release it as Creative Commons. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not covered under fair use Victor Grigas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I don't think WP:F7b applies here; [9] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, got some new commentary in the article on it. Check it out in aftermath, it'll develop BarntToust (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to have sourced commentary in our article. Personisinsterest did add a statement to that effect, but it was removed within three minutes. In any case, it was awfully skimpy, and would at most support putting the image in that section, not in the infobox. —Cryptic 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Hey, look, Politico and The Daily Beast, they reported on that. Axios showed a similar image too! BarntToust (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo. Adabow (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This clearly falls under fair use as a historical image. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]