[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14

< Wikipedia:Files for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 15 July 2024 (Signing comment by 2601:600:8F83:16A0:778D:327F:BDD0:C0A5 - "→‎File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 13
July 15 >

July 14

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bremps (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
Note to newcomers: This discussion centers around whether this image aligns with the Wikipedia's WP:Image use policy, with particular concern around the WP:Non-free content criteria, or NFCC. This image is a copyrighted work of Evan Vucci, who has not licensed the work under a free license. It is legally prohibited to redistribute this file without the author's permission. NFCC sets out criteria for how these copyrighted works can be used in Wikipedia, under the US doctrine of fair use, which allows copyrighted works to be redistributed without permissions in some contexts. This is not a discussion on how significant or iconic the photo is, but rather how it satisfies NFCC. Comments unsupported by policy will be given less weight by the closer of this discussion. Ca talk to me! 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photo is *the* image of the assassination attempt, which - as a historical event - consists of more than the "when, where, and how." The event's primary effect on history is and will continue to be political, and this image captures that context perfectly.
Moreover, the image itself serves as an efficient summary of the notable sequence of events: the bullet grazed President Trump's ear, the Secret Service swarmed in, and President Trump reacted by pumping his fist at his supporters. I suspect that we would not be having this discussion if the subject of the picture were not Donald Trump. Likewise, I feel that there would be less consternation if the image made Trump look bad. Arguments to the contrary strike me as bad faith pedantry, and may contribute to this site's already diminished standing among the general public. 2601:248:4B00:F320:697D:2F5F:A0E1:DEDD (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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]
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]
AP is government funded, he is apart of AP Gonzafer001 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 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]
We have articles for Barack Obama "Hope" poster, I think this picture could get it's own article. its one of the clearest pictures of an assassination attempt aftermath. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:26, 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]
The'fact' is you used jibe in a statement about the perceived lack of something 'historical' in the attempted assassination of a world leader. 174.29.184.14 (talk) 18:40, 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 or 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]
How would that contribute to discussing if the image is fair use or not. (If you want the list, read List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. It is ludicrous to think that this iconic and historical image should be deleted. Wikipedia would become a laughingstock. This image is shared millions of times all over the world. There is no way to stop. Brianahier (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think opposition comes more from historical biases rather then anything else.
The presidencies are defining history, and campaigns are the things that decide presidencies. For example something as seemingly insignificant as Dean scream has its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Why? Because it tanked him in the polls and deprived him of shot at presidency possibly changing course of history, and without a doubt changing power balance in DNC.
This photo will be signifier of a moment in which potential next president escaped with his life. It is historic, and even more if Trump wins presidency. People want it deleted, not because it is not, but because of personal antipathy. It makes him look really good with fist in the air, triumphantly standing after surviving assassination attempt by inches. Moderators want it deleted to not promote positive image of Trump in eyes of potential readers, not because lack of educational value. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read what people are actually saying, they want it deleted because it violates our strict policy on Fair Use images, not anything against Trump. See WP:NFCC. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not fooling anybody. Everybody knows the leanings of Wikipedia moderators, and this pedantry is just a cover. 2601:248:4B00:F320:697D:2F5F:A0E1:DEDD (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I feel like people are biased against trump and are just claiming Wikipedia:Non-free content, I mean the picture has its own article. Trump raised fist photographs. I still think this is like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Raising the Flag at Ground Zero, it’s a powerful moment weather you like him or not.
I don’t love trump, I don’t hate trump, but this is a historic picture. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:31, 15 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]
  • 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]
        That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:10, 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]
Delete 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]
This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing clear bias and it's pretty obvious you want the picture removed because of the effect that you perceive it having in the public - an effect you clearly do not like. The picture should stay because of its historical significance, regardless of how you feel about it or the ways you think someone on social media might be using it. I don't even see how that's relevant or why you even mentioned it, other than to demonstrate your bias. 178.222.30.152 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - exactly what I've spoken of in previous comment. Zathraas wants it deleted, because it shows image of Trump as a 'though guy' rather then lack of educational substance. Disingenuous reasoning, that should be dismissed. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 (talk) 14:55, 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]
Speedy delete. Copyrighted image — 48JCL 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that might have merits for use? Not seeing any complex argument from 48JCL here. BarntToust (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President Trump lives! KEMBMB61 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEMBMB61 and BarntToust. It's almost like this is unacceptable fair use! — 48JCL 12:55, 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]
Noting that the article now says: 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. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."
This seems pretty straightforwardly within the remit of WP:NFCC. jp×g🗯️ 02:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one? The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Adabow (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we were using it by that commentary. That does not, however, justify its current use as an infobox image. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:33, 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]
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]
Uniqueness doesn’t establish fair use. If anything, it argues against it, as a unique photo has a larger market value, will will be more impacted by it being illegally hosted on Wikipedia Timtjtim (talk) 16:20, 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]
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]
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]
Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep This is the photo of the event. It's already spread like wildfire and describes a lot of what happened. Pickle Mon (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view NoKNoC (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To not use this image does not make sense as it has high relevance to the actual shooting. It should be kept as is. 2603:3020:1D28:0:A102:898D:4162:35B0 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia. Skirjamak (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?
Sharrdx (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.
The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above arguments
Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This image is likely to become one of cultural and/or historical significance. 2603:6081:893A:610B:D4CE:7D69:3DEE:CDAD (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is clearly of great historical significance. It should not be removed or replaced. 2601:602:8C81:C690:D091:DD6D:9C3F:4D8F (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image will be generation defining 2600:1700:8528:F60:367D:E8A6:D501:A28F (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this. Coulomb1 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its a cool image but its not fair use MildLoser (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others
LittleMAHER1 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary.Real tlhingan (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2600:1700:103C:3410:C815:6813:7DA:9704 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic and remarkable image of defiance in the face of lethal political violence. Userino (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.
It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.
Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.
Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter. Hanoi89computerlover (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold DecafPotato (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt GodzillamanRor (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep! 68.10.108.140 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Photo looks hard af 49.188.176.117 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait until a satisfactory substitute is found. Doubtful we'd be able to find one though. Ronan.Iroha (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply have to disagree. The photo shows a scene of the incident, which makes it absolutely justified in my point of view. 2A02:FF0:331C:C3DD:440:A65D:8F78:4267 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
This is an image that, according to the "public image of trump" section, does indeed affect the "public image of trump". TheYeetedMeme (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the current status of online circulation of this picture, it almost certainly falls under the category of "fair use". Normchou 💬 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wait until a CC image becomes available, per previous replies. I will agree as to its artistic/historic merit, though. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until we can find a better photo within our usage rights; this iconic image would likely be our best option. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photo itself (not just the event it depicts) is important, having been called a "history-changing photo", a "legendary American photograph", "undeniably one of the great compositions in U.S. photographic history" ([9], [10]). It deserves its own article. But since for now it doesn't have its own article , and is instead dealt with as a section within Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the fair use inclusion of the photo also has to be in that article. Note that it is not there to illustrate the assasination attempt, but to illustrate the photo itself as a topic. Angbor (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NFCC due to being irreplaceable Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However there is a non-zero chance that the photo itself may prove itself deserving of an article, at which point it would be fine to have there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above (disregarding those mentioning "political bias", as I do not see any merit to these). Await Creative Commons photograph.
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a historical picture. It is already widely shared around the world, so I don’t know why Wikipedia wouldn’t want to keep it. FaChol (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:The article is part of topic I think your pronouns take up to much of your brain use to realize that’s what ever article does provide pictures on subject of article . Leftist loser 2603:8080:8DF0:6710:5902:62AE:C0D9:36DD (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is so iconic, its explanatory power is equal to 10 paragraphs. It is very important for the article. Mstf221 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the image itself is extensively discussed on the article. This is more subjective, but the article feels incomplete without the picture. Collorizador (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per others JSwift49 10:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there could be an ulterior motive behind this proposal, concealed beneath a veil of copyright concern. 178.222.30.152 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:gee i wonder what completely unbiased reason you might have to block this image mr they/them 86.29.78.221 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:You have pronouns listed. Of course you hate President Trump. 50.126.66.207 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the iconic image adds depth to the article. Very purposeful. TheMovieGuy (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ Temple, Emily (February 21, 2018). "20 Iconic New Yorker Covers from the Last 93 Years". Literary Hub. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
  2. ^ Norris, Mary (May 10, 2015). "How I proofread my way to Philip Roth's heart". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 12, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. It has been more than 20 years since I became a page OK'er—a position that exists only at the New Yorker, where you query-proofread pieces and manage them, with the editor, the author, a fact-checker, and a second proofreader, until they go to press.
  3. ^ "Mary Norris: The nit-picking glory of the New Yorker's comma queen". TED. April 15, 2016. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018. Copy editing for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop for a major league baseball team—every little movement gets picked over by the critics ... E. B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker: 'They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body.'
  • You are confused. BarntToust (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a reliable website. You are wrong on saying it's unreliable. BarntToust (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all! BarntToust (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) —Cryptic 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability. BarntToust (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 26 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that.nableezy - 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close — Commentary has been provided about this image. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them. R. G. Checkers talk 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah! most efficient image to use to cover many aspects of the situation. BarntToust (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from the template itself ({{Non-free historic image}}): 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 (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the commentary? It's in the article. BarntToust (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "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 (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article. BarntToust (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." 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 (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context. BarntToust (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per LuxembourgLover, Coulomb1, Personisinsterest, and others. - AndreyKva (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one.Zyxrq (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyxrq: Evan Vucci owns the copyright of the image. Common use alone does not satisfy NFCC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs)

Keep it. It is historical and iconic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.136.24 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - This image does not satisfy NFCC and the substance of the article can be conveyed just fine without it. RahelTensions (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.

--User: MattiasLikesOxygen-- — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The media is calling this specific image "one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence. Endwise (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Endwise: recognizable photo that illustrates the event. Cremastra (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image improves the article and is of obvious historic importance. Glass Snow (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC#2 is I think the most reasonable concern, but our version is low-res and the photo has already been licensed to hundreds of news outlets, so we probably aren't really hurting its commercial success? Endwise (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep. Bremps... 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone trying to delete this is purely doing so for political reasons. 90.244.131.5 (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the original uploader, let's assume the best of each other here. Bremps... 08:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the keep !votes that don't say how it meets NFCC are not worth much. It is too early to say whether it meets NFCCP 1, while 5 and 8 are borderline at best and it definately fails 2. Aircorn (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3). Alaexis¿question? 08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what other people advocating for deletion was concerned about was NFCC #8, about which at the time, the article lacked a major discussion on the photo(now it does imo). Ca talk to me! 11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. GeraldWL 08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the concern with the opposition, the concern is it violates copyright. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A thorough look at the opposition (at least, some) indicates such. With the presence of extensive commentary, I do not consider copyright to be a hindrance to the image being present in the art., as it is in low res, and is cropped. Fair use is applicable in this case. GeraldWL 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject of sourced commentary - ? jp×g🗯️ 10:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For information, I have created a new article about this photograph, which I think qualifies for use under the fair use criteria. Photograph of Donald Trump after shooting Hallucegenia (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the copyright problem here, fair use is dominant in this case. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion. Joe (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – until we can find a better-quality free replacement, this will do for now. It seems like a valid case of fair use to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem? Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this "most representative" of the event? The event was a shooting. This is a moment in the aftermath. -- Zanimum (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significantly after the event occurred no less, after the shooter was neutralized. There are images taken place during the actual attempt, which should take priority. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanimum, and what picture is possibly most representative of the event if not this one? This is an image that must be in the article. Super Ψ Dro 18:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without a question, this must be in the article. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles are trickling into the mainstream press with titles like Trump’s Raised Fist Will Make History — And Define His Candidacy (Politico) and "Amid the Mayhem, Trump Pumped His Fist and Revealed His Instincts" (The New York Times). Trump's reaction to the attack is notable in and of itself, and this image is an ideal means of illustrating that aspect of the event. Particularly if this ends up being a turning point in the campaign—which is certainly credible considering how other assassination attempts of political candidates has gone in the past—having this image will be a critical piece of Wikipedia's coverage of the event.
Now, for the policy wonks—There is clearly no way to get a free use image of this not-legally-recreatable event (NFCC #1), the photographer's commercial opportunities are clearly not being hampered by us running it since so many mainstream outlets are running the full-size image (NFCC #2), it is used once to illustrate one article (NFCC #3, #7), as stated before it has been previously published in major news sources (NFCC #4), it is encyclopedic (NFCC #5, although I contend that this site has ground the word "encyclopedic" down into such a fine paste that it has no meaning anymore, but that's what the policy asks for here), I can see no reason it would violate WP:IUP (NFCC #6), as the de facto defining image of the event it inherently increases readers' understanding of the article topic and would be detrimental to the readers' understanding (NFCC #8), NFCC #9 is not relevant to a deletion discussion, and the image description page looks up to snuff (NFCC #10). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current layout with the image used in a section specifically discussing impact and coverage of the image should be fine. Whether in can be used for the article overall should be up to people better versed in copyright law. — jonas (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an image with very clear historical importance.--Martianmister (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, until a free image is available - Jonnmann (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph. But I agree that we must replace the photograph when a free image available. Mmnashrullah (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Since no one on the Keep side has offered more persuasive reasons than "common use" or "historical event", I find myself, as a law student, obliged to give some, though I confess that my reasons may rather be more like "legal policy" instead of "original text". I also invite @BluePenguin18 to join the discussion here so that we can better address this case.
BluePenguin18 has mentioned that the photo here falls undoubtedly under the protection of US copyright law, which I won't oppose. Here I'll rather refer to a German case that the Wiki community has lost in a row of appeals (BGH, 20.12.2018 - I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos): while the artworks in the museum were all in public domain, the German court found the photos on Wiki infringing, relying on the photographer’s neighboring right (no copyright for “Lichtbilder” there), as well as the museum’s land right along with standard form contract ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"). Two inspirations: first, even without copyright, monopoly on info may still occur through other means; second, throughout and even after the whole legal process Wikimedia has been a staunch endorser of free use. [1]. For us Wikipedians, fair use should never be a compliance requirement which hinders our free expression. Rather we have a long history of “rebel”.
You may argue that here we’re talking about a newly created picture, not something in the public domain, and the two cases must be distinguished. Fine. But from the outset of the modern interpretation of fair use doctrine (since Campbell) there has not been a consensus that it is only a defense for customers who accidentally and “harmlessly” takes a free riding. Rather, many scholars have seen fair use as per se shaping the limits of copyright and hence encouraging positive secondary uses, even if the use is at odds with the original author’s potential commercial plan. (See for example, “Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?” by Lydia Pallas Loren, 2015.)
Among the four factors of fair use, Factor 4, i.e. market incentives, has often been seen as significantly, if not decisively, important. Yet few, if not none, has talked about it here. We need to recognize that Evan Vucci, as an employee of AP and already prize-winning photographer, enjoys much more economic benefits from elsewhere than from a petty license on Wiki. And due to the news nature of the photo he may expect more financial interests from the next Pulitzer Prize rather than from broad online licensing. More importantly, after the news he HAS POSTED THE PHOTO ON THE X PLATFORM so that anyone from Elon Musk to a nobody can freely cite it. Did he just post a low-quality copy of the photo there so that he can price discriminate on different sites? Nope. And he must be aware that the photos online does not harm his capacity to license other famous magazines and papers.
Conclusion, even if Vucci does really want more profits from Wiki, that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! -- Jason211pacem (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/11/23/lawsuit-public-domain-art/
Additional Comment I find that some among us believe that "since there are photos accurately capturing the moment of shooting, we shouldn't use Vucci's photo here" or "we may keep until we find closer moment to the shooting". That sounds quite weird to me. Then we must replace the headline photo in Assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK's convoy minutes before the event) with one accurately capturing the bullet passing through the poor president's head? Remember that the moment seized by Vucci happened just ONE MINUTE after the shot. We need not question its news value. Jason211pacem (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use File:JFK limousine.png because it is both the image most associated with the event's news coverage and in the public domain. Copyrighted images cannot be used on Wikipedia simply because they satisfy the first criterion. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "how does fair use align with public expression" and "how does one assert copyright ownership in the age of mass online image sharing" are great topics of debate for a law class seminar, the Wikimedia Foundation is a registered organisation that has certain legal responsibilities. You will note that Wikipedia's NFCC requirements are stricter than US fair use law, and part of that is because Wikimedia's lawyers do not want to wait for him to DMCA us. I have never seen someone with purported knowledge of copyright law to be so flippant about ignoring it on the basis of 'but it would be really hard for the copyright owner to challenge WP'. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Building off Kingsif, Vucci's decision to post the photo on X is not proof that he is flippant with the image's copyright. The image was already being widely proliferated across social media before Vucci's post, and any photographer knows that policing social media posts for copyright infringement is too cumbersome. By making his own post on X, Vucci was simply promoting his creation to increase its commercial value among institutional customers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the sole reason that the image is easily accessible across tabloid sources, a simple web search will find it instantly. We do not need to have non-free content here that is extremely easy to find elsewhere. Ideally, though, a photographer or agency holding the rights to an image would conduct a VRT release, but I really doubt that would ever happen. There is big money in images like this, hence why Wikipedia needs to be careful - I would not be surprised if the copyright holders look around for violations and sue the reusers as a way of getting some extra money. Redtree21 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now covered in detail in the section Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Effects_on_Trump's_public_image. An entire well-sourced paragraph and a half is used for this discussion of this photo. Now satisfies WP:NFCCP #5 and #9. Ca talk to me! 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP historic image that is sure to define this generation and become an iconic photograph. daruda (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is low-resolution version (per Wikipedia's fair use policy) of the only photograph in the article that illustrates its subject. Ivan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a historical image.--Aréat (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't think of any picture more historical and relevant to the section it is in than this.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I understand the point by some above, there is significant doubt this actually meets WP:NFCC criteria, which means this must default to delete. Copyright is a serious deal for Wikipedia, not a game of chicken ([...] that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! is quite out of the question). I think it is far too soon to tell if this is actually a historic image; just because some eager people call it as such on the day of doesn't make it so (especially with so many other images of this). This does not proscribe it in the future if circumstances change. Curbon7 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your kind mention, Curbon7. My timetable and the lengths of my previous statement didn't allow me to elaborate, so I left a hippy-style conclusion. Yet by saying "let him DMCA us" I didn't meant to completely ignore or topple the copyright regime. About such an idea I am Half Serious. Plz let me clarify it here:
    1. While copyright is absolutely a serious deal, its legal regime should not be treated as moral burdens to the secondary users. Rather, it provides us with instructions and legal tools on negotiating a license with the right holder. DMCA, in particular, falls into such a description, as it tries to maintain a balance among right holders, platforms and net users. While "let him sue" may sound appalling, I don't find it a taboo for a copyright discussion.
    2. By saying "fair use is not a compliance requirement" I don't mean ANY compliance is unnecessary. Rather, I believe that rules like NFCC is foundational for our forum. Yet my argument is based on the following idea: copyright, like other IP rights, doesn't mean full property rule. For example: A. S. Rinehart, in her 2010 essay "Contracting Patents: A Modern Patent Exhaustion Doctrine", modelled patent exhaustion as a pliability rule which, under certain circumstances, shifts the protection level from property rule to liability rule. I believe the case in copyright fair use is similar. And I further believe that, with a liability rule and a quasi-contract-style protection, the secondary user, based on reasonable good faith, need not immediately refrain from the use and delete the copy; whether our faith is indeed no problem, is subject to the "let him sue" stage. Therefore, we need not resort to the strictest interpretation of NFCC, and an adequate level of application is enough.
    3. So let's pay attention to NFCC. While all 10 criteria should be met, in individual judgments the 10 factors must be correlated. Here I only mention the criteria 1 & 2, which I find most important. While criterion 1 may be the biggest barrier for the secondary use, I think its main focus is rather about citation of literature than about photos. There can be so many different photos serving similar encyclopedic purposes; if we too stringently follow the text, then we may find it quite troubling to search for free yet publicly unknown materials: "Is there any better option than Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima that adequately adresses the WWII History of the United States?" For criterion 2, I must say that my idea may change a little bit if the photo is from a rather humble photographer who happens to make their creation viral (I know it's hard for pixiv artists to make money through single pictures, many of them must resort to privitized customizations). But this is a typical case of famous photographer earning a living on his trademark instead of individual photo licenses. -- Jason211pacem (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now with no prejudice against restoring later. There's no way to tell less than 24 hours afterward if this image has a unique significance with no free alternative. The event is significant, but there's no transitive property that conveys a unique significance to the image. There were untold numbers of cameras at the event, making untold numbers of photos. Any one of those may be released for free in the near future. The article is about the event, and not about the image. The image itself needs to be rendered irreplaceable. GMGtalk 11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This photo will have (if not already has) a historical value. Trang Oul (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFCC has no exceptions for "crystal-balling the importance of something based on editor whims", and it fails the other NFCC criterion, particularly 2 and 8; there is nothing in the text that is significantly harmed by not having it (and the choice clearly seems like an intentional end-run around NPOV considerations, as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if copyright can be obtained. Otherwise, Delete if we'reunable to. Has anyone attempted to try to contact the photographer for permission to use it on Wikipedia? He does have some social media sources, and I believe he should have an AP e-mail address. Maybe once the event is a month old and is no longer as profitable for the photographer that they may give limited permission to share on Wikipedia. The Legacy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are we supposed to do until the initial flurry of profitability that you describe has passed? Would it not be better to reupload once we have permission and a release from Associate Press (if this ever even occurred)? Redtree21 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Like others said, a former president getting injured in an assassination attempt is an exceptional event; and this photo has probably entered the historical pantheon. Vucci would agree - it's been shared and reproduced on an enormous scale, without any complaints from him at all. Unless we get a notice from AP, there's no need to remove it; in fact, it would be contrary to our mission of being a compendium of knowledge. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The usage is minimal: the extent of use has been reduced by reducing the resolution and cropping. It is implausible that this low resolution cropped version of this photograph which exists in the original, high, resolution, alongside various other high-resolution photographs with the same subject, is commercially usable in itself. This specific file with the dimensions of 514x479px does not have desirable properties for commercial use. The author can benefit from distributing the original version, and this modified version appearing in one Wikipedia article does not substantially diminish his commercial opportunities with respect to this work. I don't think that free images exist that could be used in place of this image to adequately illustrate the section Effects on Trump's public image (permalink). The image is of high contextual significance irrespective of it being a "historical image" because what is depicted has a strong connection to what is being discussed in the section: The footage of his reassurance that he was only lightly wounded to spectators and media alike moments after the assassination attempt was broadcast internationally. The image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air, surrounded by the Secret Service, and with an American flag in the backdrop, was taken by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press and spread on social media shortly afterwards.—Alalch E. 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyrighted image where it is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made (WP:NFCCP#1). However, if the image is one day discussed separately in its own article, then there would obviously be no free equivalent for that article, and fair used could be claimed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if there is an article about the image or the image is used to illustrate a portion of the content of another article. Completely the same. —Alalch E. 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby it is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made is a poor reason to delete the photo now. If a new, license compatible photo is found, then we can delete. But if, after deleting this photo, none crops up, we will have deprived readers of valuable information for no real reason. Mach61 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use. Kingsif (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif I have never heard of the existence of such a policy, nor do I read such a requirement in WP:NFC. Strictly speaking, all copyrighted content will be in the public domain at some point, but that fact does not invalidate our fair use claims Mach61 16:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC #1, with added emphasis: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. The point is, can we reasonably say it's not going to be possible for an image to be released freely. A year after the fact, probably, not 24 hours.
    Future PD is sometimes mentioned, but as far as copyright lifespan before becoming PD — for current works, that’s creator’s lifespan plus 75 years in the US, which Commons requires, so in the realm of indefinite — it’s, as far as I’ve seen, just treated as the same thing, i.e. having to generally agree that there won’t be a free image (until copyright expires on non-free works). Then they can be used fair use until reaching PD. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif The release of an existing image under a free license is not the same thing as the potential creation of new free content. The latter is impossible in this instance, as the event has passed. Mach61 17:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on precedent, expectations, from other discussions, I take ‘releasing a pre-existing image with a new free license’ as a form of creating a free image. In my experience, images don’t get kept without sufficient BEFORE and without a compelling reason why no free equivalent will crop up. Give it a bit of time, because generally you have to be able to answer "yes" to all the following:
    1. Will the subject of the depiction not or not likely occur again?
    2. Have all images of the subject been or likely been published?
    3. Are all of these images copyrighted (or have unknown license status, so presumably copyrighted)?
    4. Has some effort been made to approach copyright holders and politely request a commons-compliant license re-release?
    Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point being, we don’t default to using non-free while still looking for free alternatives. Copyvio errs on the side of caution, if nothing else, and defaults to no image while still looking for free ones. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the photo meets criterion eight by virtue of actually depicting the aftermath of the event itself, in color, something text cannot do. It meets criterion two by cropping and lowering the resolution compared to the original. It meets criterion one because the event has passed, and no free photos of it have, to my knowledge, been released. Mach61 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I have no special attachment to this photo over any other photos depicting the event or its immediate aftermath, w/r/t the Assassination attempt against Donald Trump article. Mach61 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't think it's hyperbolic to state that it is an historic and iconic image, with only The Situation Room popping to mind as another historic post 9/11 American image. The image is already getting widespread media attention and represents the event well. CaptainTeebs (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Situation Room photograph is in the public domain, as it was taken by a White House photographer. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, fails NFCC#1 and #2 and fulfils the F7b speedy deletion criteria. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    F7b applies "where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary". See Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Effects on Trump's public image. Endwise (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic image. 14:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

KEEP it's a historical image. All of the above keep arguments are important. The entire article is about what is shown in the image, it's relevant. 98.203.91.148 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Stealth[reply]

Weird, I didn't notice the photo actually being a documentary of the background, shooting, aftermath and public response. It would only qualify for "automatic" fair use if the article was about the image itself, not (one part of) the article being about (as you say) what the image depicts. Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images, better NFCC-compliance arguments are needed. Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There's nothing good faith about it; the only reason people want this image gone is because they're scared of how it might improve his political standing. 2601:410:8200:3910:41D5:1020:7BA0:3E4F (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — 2601:410:8200:3910:41D5:1020:7BA0:3E4F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not at all. Actually take the time to read what people are saying. The grounds for deletion are based on our strict Fair Use policy and that policy alone. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I am from Germany so I got no horse in this race. This picture is being used on international news outlets all over the world. No one will remember who shot Trump in 2025 but this photo is going down in history. Edit: The national news used the photo in their coverage: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/trump-wahlkampfveranstaltung-evakuiert-100.html
  • KEEP. Much as the Zapruder film became vital to the discussion of the Kennedy assassination, this photo is destined to become synonymous with this event. Substituting with another photo well not have the same effect.

Capnpen (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a historic image depicting an attempted assassination on the former President of the United States. AbdullahMzm (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is historic image that will be remembered. I guess is ok to leave it on the page. Santixd12 (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just going to build off my own comment above where I say Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images to address NFCC #8, that is, importance within the specific article it is being used in.
    Because even if we accept that the photo itself can be fair use (which it probably will be once the immediate commercial opportunities slow down), and that there will never be a free image to depict the entire article subject of the shooting (i.e. that the only way this article can have an image is to use a fair use one; this is incredibly unlikely), we also would need to reach a consensus that the best photographic representation of the article subject is this one, that this is the right fair use image for the article.
    Personally, I think that a fair use photo depicting the moment of the shooting would probably be more pertinent, even a photo of the rally either beforehand or being evacuated might encapsulate the entire event better. Of course, this is one of the subjective criteria, but it needs to be addressed if trying to !keep. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this does not preclude an article about the photo being created, nor that the analysis in the event article could come to rely on (i.e. need) illustration. It is my understanding that neither of those are relevant at the moment, at least, not as described in the file's fair use template (#10). Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is copyrighted and hasn't been released by the author, and has significant commercial value. A free alternative will almost certainly become available. Horep (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When and if it would be available we can bring this argument. Currently this argument is improper. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the opposite: to quote myself, Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The photo itself is the subject of news coverage that is discussed within the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Wikipedia is keeping the image of Will Smith sucker punching Chris Rock who is not a president or former president, then I think we should keep this one. --LasVegasGirl93 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as an addendum to my above call for deletion. After reading through this discussion, I am struck by the large number of Keeps that seem to either entirely ignore, or seriously downplay the legal issues here. Copyright and respect for that, is one of the more important policies we have as a community. On which note, has anyone considered contacting the AP, and asking them for permission to use their image? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly any comment that suggests that it is appropriate solely due to it being an "iconic image" should just be ignored as that is not even a factor in determining fair use criteria. Someone suggested contacting AP in this thread, but to be honest I think this photo set from Doug Mills at the NYT is a much better depiction of the event as it actually shows the immediate event, so might be worth contacting a few of these outlets. I don't know who would want to take point but yeah, doubt they will give us permission. Who is to say though! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with what Alalch E. wrote about its minimal usage and strong connection to what is being discussed in the section. BlueShirtz (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. It's a great photo but there are plenty of free media about the assassination attempt that could also illustrate the event. I think the best comparison is 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and Tank Man. While the Tank Man photo is iconic and historically significant, it isn't present in the article about the main event because there are sufficient free alternatives. Since the photo itself became notable, it gets used in its own article, but not in the article about the main protest/massacre. Citing (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter in which article it is used at as long as it serves a valid illustrative purpose relative to some portion of the text. —Alalch E. 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but what's the portion of the text? A paragraph saying a photographer took a really good photo? I think that's pretty thin justification, otherwise every news event would be littered with copyrighted material. Maybe this photo will take on historical significance and a life of its own, but we can't tell that at this point and this website isn't a crystal ball. For all we know, reliable sources will stop talking about it by the end of the news cycle. Citing (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Citing I have no issue with removing this photo from the main article if a free alternative is released. None has, so far, and none could be newly created, as the event has passed. Mach61 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mach61: There were thousands (hundreds?) of people at the rally, many of whom were recording or taking photos, and it hasn't been 24 hours. I'd be shocked if *no* free media were uploaded. Citing (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per users above
  • Delete, same photo was deleted on Commons and this file should be deleted as well. Changing my mind. ToadetteEdit! 16:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding there is a larger problem reported on Meta on this image. It is a copyvio that should be deleted. ToadetteEdit! 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not appropriate to use on Wikinews. That is a different concern and irrelevant to this discussion. BarntToust (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons has different policy. It's routine that Commons would delete what the English Wikipedia would not. —Alalch E. 17:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the photo. This photo sums up the spirit of the article and Mr. Trumps spirit after he was almost assassinated. 2620:149:1CA1:200:197A:D379:B2E8:CE6D (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in concurance with what Alalch E. about it's minimal usage and strong connection to the subject. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this promptly iconic image meets the criteria of WP:Fair use. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a historic image. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The image is not the exclusive image taken and, less than a day later, we have certainly not exhausted the search for images without copyright restrictions. Furthermore, there is the possibility that we are infringing on a compelling commercial interest by duplicating this image without permission. If an article on the image or images is written, then we could have a reason for fair use. The "historic" merit of an image is not a compelling argument in this case and should be understood as not pertinent~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep it... it is history to delete it would only further prove wiki political bias and lose millions in dontations to wikpedia 2601:40E:182:E50:B19C:913C:67DF:EE2B (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should act in accordance with Wikipedia policy, not based off of how people will donate to the project. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Might be historic, not free use as per reasons above. The page is not about the photo itself. If the photo becomes notable, create a new page for the photo. Kunal4 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. We're seeing authors in major publications beginning to write about the image itself, which throws this more into the realm of illustrating the subject of critical commentary, not merely illustrating an event. In such a situation, the issue of effect-on-reuse is less significant, since even another nonfree image wouldn't be able to replace it: the commentary is about this particular image, not about the event that it depicts. However, these are necessarily all primary sources — they date from the historic context of the image's creation, not from significantly afterward — and if secondary sources end up ignoring this image or rejecting the idea that it was of significance, we'll have reason to say that it's not a historically significant image, making it unsuitable for coverage here. Should that be the case, we'll have no justification for claiming fair use for a commercial image. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend then a new article about the image itself should be created. The image, being used in an article about the event, already breaches the rule as stated at {{Non-free historic image}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As others have noted, there are potential issues with the commercial rights and licensing of this image. Wikipedia must adhere to strict copyright policies to maintain its integrity and legal standing. Additionally, there is evolving context that must be considered. This is a rapidly unfolding and emotionally charged event. We don't yet have a full understanding of how this image is being used or interpreted in various contexts. Its inclusion could unintentionally promote or signal certain narratives before we have a complete picture. Ms.britt (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very wishy-washy language, and frankly almost sounds AI generated. Please cite specific policies... how is "emotionally charged" even relevant here? A large amount of people all over the world by definition are going to find anything on the news "charged". ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because it's a low-res photo - from looking at WP:NFCC, it obviously meets criteria 1 and 4-10, so the discussion boils down to #2 (respect for commercial opportunities) and #3 (minimal usage). A 326x304 thumbnail is all we need for WP purposes, and I can't imagine a low-res version here is going to interfere with actual commercial opportunities for the photographer (because the only people who will pay are going to want either high-res so they can publish it, commercial rights to sell it on shirts etc., or both - WP usage won't interfere with that). I don't think high-res would be OK, but low-res is. Alsadius (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about photo has been created at Trump raised fist photographs. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly ok there, but it now fails WP:UUI #6 in the assassination article. —Cryptic 22:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've always strongly disagreed with that guideline, but it is a guideline, and I'm sure someone will remove it from the assassination article. Levivich (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking at WP:NFCC, the relevant policy, I'm failing to see which of the ten criteria this doesn't meet. The first four seem the most pertinent, so let's look at them in turn:
    1. No free equivalent - There's no free equivalent to this photo as far as I'm aware.
    2. Respect for commercial opportunities - The cropped, tiny image here should not interfere with normal market usage of the photo.
    3. Minimal usage - This is a single item, and again, it's cropped and shrunk from the original
    4. Previous publication - This was already published by the Associated Press as well as many other news organizations.
    The rest of the items are more generic and not an issue at all here, or can be easily corrected if technicalities come up. So I don't see how this fails on policy grounds. It should be kept unless and until a free alternative becomes available. —Torchiest talkedits 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious what research you've done before declaring no free equivalent exists. After all, there are plenty of other pictures of this event out there. And why this image - which has the highest commercial potential - rather than another one? Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no free alternative for the article Trump raised fist photographs. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It would be nitpicking and not many other political photos are treated this way. I think its a very important photo and the copyright holder wont have an issue.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it isn't "legally prohibited", it's subject to fair use doctrine, of which Wikipedia takes an extremely narrow interpretation for policy reasons unrelated to law (e.g. we are using a tiny 200px thumbnail of the photo and not the actual photo). jp×g🗯️ 19:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This image is of historical and cultural significance. Nir007H (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I also concur, ditto, and the cropped photograph with the United States flag partially cut out doesn’t entirely glorify Trump’s survival. (Trying to get political bias out of the way as good Wikipedians should, I mostly add/edit flags on Wikipedia Commons.) Centralismo (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, absolutely one of the historic pictures of this century Muelder (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this image conveys post-assassination events the subject of the article's section. ImmanuelLovesYou (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep: although better suited for the Victims or Aftermath sections of article. ImmanuelLovesYou (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedily keep Fair use, and the related incident needs proper visual identification. Maybe use the entire portion and move it to the infobox, but otherwise, no, this file needs to be on the Wikipedia until an adequate free alternative exists. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this is not the first time an image tagged under the historic image template was used in such a way. We may need more than one template to describe that though. Regardless, I still feel that visual identification of the incident is desperately needed. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's fails WP:NFCC #2, arguably fails NFCC #1. For example, in addition to Vucci's photos, Getty Images includes photos from Rebecca Droke and Jeff Swensen, and I'm sure many others exist as well. Including this picture in Wikipedia at this point in time makes it less likely for someone to upload their own version to Commons. Guettarda (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, per copyright law and fair use law, this photo does not appear to qualify. Any fair use claim is especially knocked down not only because the article of use isn't about the photo, but also because there are large number of other photos also being used in the media about the incident, thus fair use doesn't cover this particular image as a singular representative use. I hope the closer of this discussion takes into account copyright law and WP policy requirements, rather than all the Keep votes above that aren't putting forward a policy argument or even addressing the copyright fair use concerns. SilverserenC 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and this photo being shared on multiple major news sites and its perception as historic to events. I feel Wikipedia would do a disservice to readers by deleting.2601:600:8F83:16A0:778D:327F:BDD0:C0A5 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8F83:16A0:778D:327F:BDD0:C0A5 (talk)

File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete. —Cryptic 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CltFn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source of image is http://www.christoph-heger.de/Note_on_the_Huris.htm which states "Foto/courtesy Andrea Barbara Schmidt". Clearly not own work of uploader, but am listing it here due to the age of the upload. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LunaEclipse (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free icon used to illustrate the infobox of a living person, for which freely licensed images could be created. Fails the NFCC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May count as a significant part of the YouTuber's branding. Bremps... 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:F7. Profile picture is non-free content from a commercial source (her monetized YouTube channel) and is not the subject of sourced commentary. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially using a fair use image to illustrate a living person which fails NFCC. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article does not concern the logo itself, but rather the individual using it. Redtree21 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NFCC criteria 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Including her YouTube profile picture does not add to readers' understanding of the article's contents, nor does removing it hurt their understanding. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 19:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg

File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mavarin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Henry Calvin#Career; the file is also being used in Zorro (1957 TV series)#Main. This file was uploaded in 2007 and was being used as the main infobox image for the "Henry Cavin" article, but was replaced by the Commons image File:Henry Calvin (1946-1947).jpg after the non-free was removed by Explicit with this edit in January 2023. Explicit also removed the non-free use rationale for the "Calvin" article with this edit. The file was, however, re-added by ProudLondoner with this edit in January 2024, without giving a reason and without adding a non-free use rationale for the use to the file's page. The use in the "Calvin" article, therefore, fails WP:NFCC#10c, and the file could be removed for that reason alone. After consulting with Explicit about this at User talk:Explicit#File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg, it was recommended that the file's uses be discussed here at FFD because of concerns that the non-free use in the "Zorro" article might also not be policy compliant. I don't think there's any justification for the non-free use in the "Calvin" article, but the use in the "Zorro" article seems borderline to me given that the character "Sergeant Demetrio Lopez Garcia" is listed as a main character. Since no stand-alone article exists about the "Garcia" character, I guess it could be argued the argument for non-free use in the article about the TV show is a bit weak; perhaps a non-free full-cast photo like this, or a publicity still like the ones shown here could be found that is {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} given that the show ran from 1957 to 1959 which would make any non-free image unnecessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Decastar.gif

File:Decastar.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sillyfolkboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Poor quality file upload, now replaced in purpose by File:Decastar_Official_Logo.png SFB 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obsolete. Bremps... 01:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and this photo being shared on multiple major news sites and its perception as historic to events. I feel Wikipedia would do a disservice to readers by deleting.2601:600:8F83:16A0:778D:327F:BDD0:C0A5 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_14&oldid=1234569627"