Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Salvadorpoliceche0961.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Salvadorpoliceche0961.JPG[edit]

no FOP in this case (not permanently installed), original photo copyrighted Polarlys 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is paranoia gone bananas. The creator of this image has himself explicitly stated that he doesn't mind it being used, as long as it is not in a negative way (as was the case with RSF). Keep --Soman 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famousphotoche.jpg --Polarlys 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, en:Che Guevara (photo) clarifies that non-commercial usage would be ok. That relating to the original photo, this is a handmade painting based on an image that effectively is used by leftwing movements all over the world for three decades, a usage that Korda never, never opposed. To delete images of banners, murals, etc., honouring Che is a to remove images based on a practice that Korda has publicly stated he was ok with. Common sense sometimes a valuable principle. --Soman 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Wow, there's a lot of factors here. This photograph contains a derivative of a derivative of a photograph. (Not to mention FOP or Berne Convention issues.)

Things we know:

  • The original photograph (that pretty much everything is based on) is by Alberto Korda. He owns* the copyright and has allowed conditional free use: anyone may use it for any purpose provided that it is used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara".
  • Korda and his heirs (he died in 2001) have sued, not liking how the image was being used.[1]
Results
A British court asserted Alberto Korda's photograph copyright protection when he won a settlement over the use in an vodka advertisement.[2]
A French court banned the use of the image in a poster campaign.[3]
Note: Neither case was over "commercial use". The latter wasn't even commercial. Both were over copies/derivatives of the original photograph.
  • The original drawing is by Jim Fitzpatrick. He has declared his image "copyright free".[4]
  • This photograph was taken by Soman, who released it under either the GFDL or cc-by-2.5.
  • And finally, the drawing seen in this picture was done by an unknown author (?) and it's copyright status is unknown.

*This does not imply the U.S. recognizes his copyright claim, which would set the precedent for Commons.

Some of the above points are unique to this image, however, this is a much bigger issue.

See also:

I hope we can clear this up soon. Rocket000 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we *know* that the daughter now owns the copyright? Well, given that, here is a really crazy idea - why don't we just ask her? Explain what commons is etc, and what licensing is required, and ask if she will grant us a license. Presumably she's high profile enough to be found easily. I expect we'll get a standard lawyers letter, but we should at least ask :-) --Tony Wills 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The vodka case was obviously one of commercial use, the RSF case one of acting contrary to Korda's wish "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". The common sense assumption here, based on the empirical fact that the image has been reproduced millions of times without the Kordas even slightest legal intervention, is that as long as the image is used in bonafide manner (i.e. by groups portraying Che in a sympatechic light) it is permitted. All usage of the image on banners, posters, etc. of left groups is completly legit. --Soman 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue Korda had with the vodka case wasn't that is was commercial but the nature of the product it was advertising (though, if it wasn't commercial I don't think he would of sued). Common sense assumptions are fine for using the image yourself, that's up to you, but for Commons we need explicitly stated permission. The permission that has been stated (the conditional free use) is too restrictive for Commons. All our images need to be allowed to be used for advertising vodka (trademark issues aside). I'm making no claims on the status of the copyright; these reasons may be irrelevant anyway. Rocket000 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have argued keep for this before, but now I think that if Commons is supposed to be "as free as possible" then this image is must simply be deleted because it IS under copyright and is implicitly used with permission only. / Fred J (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a more specific permission (derivative and commercial use inclusive) forwarded to OTRS, this image is gone. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Salvadorpoliceche0961.JPG&oldid=493185318"