Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohsen Hojaji funeral in Isfahan.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mohsen Hojaji funeral in Isfahan.jpg

[edit]

Starting DR because this requires discussion. - Alexis Jazz 08:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - I assume the photo was tagged "no source" because of the photo in front of what I assume is a coffin. Would the photo not be considered de minimis here? (I just added de minimis) After all, if that photo had not been there it wouldn't make too much of a difference. We could blur the photo, there is no technical issue doing that. (I can do it) The image will still be perfectly useful for the article it is used in. The only problem I have with this is that I feel it would be severely disrespectful towards the deceased man. (the man was beheaded for crying out loud..) - Alexis Jazz 08:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture must be blurred. SlowManifesto (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlowManifesto: You are the one who added the "dw no source" template so that does not entirely surprise me. But why do you believe COM:DM is not sufficient? This is the guideline/checklist from that page:
  1. the file is in use to illustrate X -> no, it is not used to show what he looked like
  2. the file is categorised in relation to X -> not categorised because of the coffin photo
  3. X is referenced in the filename -> the man is, the coffin photo is not
  4. X is referenced in the description -> the man is, the coffin photo is not
  5. X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless -> it CAN be removed without making the file useless, but it would be disrespectful
  6. from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file. -> the coffin photo is not the reason for the creation of this file
To me, this is the same as cases where something in the image violates copyright but it's difficult for technical reasons to remove X. This is just a rare case where it's technically not that hard but it's just a matter of respect. - Alexis Jazz 14:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: I've taken a look at the source and I suspect the background and clothing were added to the picture afterwards. His face appears to be a scanned photo, possibly scanned from a newspaper or magazine as it seems to be halftoned. While interesting, I don't really see why this matters. - Alexis Jazz 14:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Thanks for your reply. --E4024 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look --Stephencdickson (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephencdickson: Thanks. Obviously if the administrators agree that it is de minimis you won't have to go through the trouble, but if they do there is a backup plan. - Alexis Jazz 17:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak delete or Edit - Sorry, but I don't think this is a valid de minimis claim. It is a picture of a person used in that person's Wikipedia article, in a category bearing that person's name, etc. That it is not intended to show what he looked like doesn't change the fact that the placement and size of the work in this photo makes it functionally the same (i.e. not about intention but about function -- it does illustrate the person whether intended or not, and the photo is very much part of the focus of this image). It is, however, still useful if this were removed, so I very much understand why de minimis is relevant to discuss here. Is there not another similar image that could be used? — Rhododendrites talk |  23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: COM:DM already deals with this and provides File:Quebec Remparts - Cape Breton Screaming Eagles - QJMHL - 11-11-2012 (23).jpg as an example. Clearly shows the team logo in the focus of the image, team name in the filename/description/category and yet it is DM - because it is not a photo of the team logo. - Alexis Jazz 23:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the connection between these images. That it is in focus is different from it being a focus. I had to look at it on my bigger monitor (vs. phone) to even see the logo you were talking about (I thought you meant the Budweiser logo at first). It is pointed to the side, one's eyes are not immediately drawn to it, and it doesn't add to the purpose of the photo. This image would not be used as an icon for the Screaming Eagles team as a whole. It is a single player and an action shot and would be used for the event, the player, the subtopic of goaltending, etc. but it would not be used as the primary identifier for the team. On the other hand, the copyrighted work in question is not only a focus of the photo, but this image's primary depiction of the subject. I understand it's about the funeral/burial, but it is in the context of a person, and when that person's face -- what people will be looking for naturally in such a context -- is among the most visible things in the photo, it's hard to say it's de minimis. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add these photos to the discussion. De minimis or derivative work?

SlowManifesto (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlowManifesto: 025 is just a slightly different crop of this photo.
For 026 and 028: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohsen_Hojaji&oldid=827607485 shows exactly why I added the "de minimis" to that image. (which the editor sadly failed to read) But they have no place in this DR. If they were nominated I wouldn't defend keeping them as strongly as I defend keeping the image this DR is about.
029 seems like DM to me, but I have my doubts it is really in scope. If that gets nominated I won't defend it strongly either. 032 is a somewhat similar case to that.
01 is really DM. The background image could be removed, it's just quite some work and I'm not sure what it could be replaced with that isn't too confusing.
As a side note for 01: seriously, why the fuck should we even care about the copyright of some idiots who try to create a new state that isn't exactly a member of the Berne union and may or may not even have copyright laws? Why would anyone have to waste time to remove that image from the background just to protect the copyright (that, if we agreed with their point of view of having a new state, doesn't even exist) of people who respect no rights of anyone in any way?
In fact, I say: put them up here. If they care, have them file a DMCA claim. If that happened, WMF would know where they live and can hand over the information to the authorities. I know none of this is going to happen, I'm just trying to illustrate the insanity. - Alexis Jazz 19:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Alexis. Here this photo(s) is taken to describe the funeral of Mohsen Hojaji. No one has the right to prevent this "right to information" by placing a copyrighted work in the midst of it. So it (the inclusion of that photo) is just incidental. Jee 03:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Quite a majority for keep. --Yann (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mohsen_Hojaji_funeral_in_Isfahan.jpg&oldid=290037157"