Image talk:TrangBang.jpg

I spoke with both the API in Los Angeles. and New York. L.A. referred me to N.Y., New York API representative said no permission would or could be granted to use 'in an encyclopedia' without payment. Specifically stated that no form of GNU license would be granted, then said "uh, maybe you had better speak to someone from legal" I was on long distance call from Los Angeles, did not call back. I don't think we can use this, but maybe someone in New york can actually go to the office, show them the usage, and ask again?Pedant 20:54, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Contents

1 from Talk:Strategic bombing 2 The bottom line 3 Image looks stretched 4 from VfD 5 Copyvio 6 Contact With AP 7 Permission Obtained from AP

from Talk:Strategic bombing

I don't think we can make a case for fair use for the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Nick Ut with AP of Kim Phuc running from bombs. Ut's life was on the line and AP paid to have him there. They are entitled to whatever royalties they can get unless they have released the photo to the public domain. Further, [1] (http://www.vwam.com/vets/myth.html) says VNAF did the bombing, not the U.S. -- ke4roh 17:44, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

This photograph is obviously fair use. It's all over the Internet, hosted by multiple news agencies and universities. Furthermore, if you were to read the article, you would see if doesn't say that the US did the bombing. The photograph alone was enough the point. Stargoat 21:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That the picture is available at news agencies is only evidence that they subscribe to AP. That it is available at universities only says AP isn't chasing schools for copyvios. We are making pictures available under a different license and for a different purpose than a random university web page about Vietnam. We have to be careful about such things. I would be glad to see the image used with permission, but I don't think anyone has asked for it yet. -- ke4roh 23:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

This image is on the cover of books 1 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/kimphuc/). There are websites devoted to this lady with the pictures all over it 2 (http://www.kimfoundation.com/en/). People sell copies of it 3 (http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/vietnam_napalm.htm). This image is everywhere. It is a historically significant document. It is the defining image of the American War in Vietnam. It is clearly fair use. Stargoat 23:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The book covers are fine - if we want to review the books. People who sell copies of it most likely pay royalites. I understand its significance, which further increases the value of the photo to the holder of the rights. None of those is an argument for fair use. Let's examine the use of the photo for Wikipedia in parallel with the information in the fair use article. This picture:

• is not for review of the copyrighted work (-1)
• is the substantive portion of the copyrighted work in a means that supercedes the original (-1)
• is for educational purposes, but not necessarily non profit (in mirrors) (0)
• is a photograph of historical significance not available from any other source (?)
• is a very small version of the original (+1)
• probably does not decrease the value of the original, and may increase its value if properly attributed (+1)

So when I tally, I get 0, -1, or 1 depending on the value of the historical significance question. IANAL, so I don't know how realistic this assessment is. I have asked for guidance on Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights.

-- ke4roh 03:00, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Lets try that fair use analysis again:

• Purpose and character: the use is to illustrate an encyclopedia article (is tranformative), is of considerably lower resolution than the original work and serves to educate the general public about the consequences of some strategic bombing approaches for the general population of the areas subjected to them (preamble purposes: criticism, teaching). There's no attempt to make money from this use (though reusers may not have this argument available). The use is part of a project to create a globally accessible, neutral encyclopedia for the world and the work as a whole has received numerous awards and been featured for several weeks as a good example in the foyer of the United Nations building.
• The original work is a widely published photograph produced by a professional news photographer. The purpose originally was news reporting but the photograph's emotional impact led to considerable use.
• A reduced resolution version of the whole image was used to illustrate an article on strategic bombing, this image being one of the classic images of such bombing campaigns and one notable in press coverage of the Vietnam War strategic bombing campaigns and their effect on the attitude of the US public to that war. The resolution used is insufficient for high quality print publication of the sort envisioned for the work.
• The encyclopedia might instead pay for a license for the work but in practice would chose not to do so, but would instead select a different image, with no caption identifying the photographer of the image being considered to highlight the work of that photographer. There's no link to the agency of the photographer or a sales venue.

Note that the image was successful because of its emotional impact and consider the suitability of it to illutrate the strategic bombing article, in the context of NPOV policy. My own inclination is to wonder whether the image should be at the photographer's article with a link from here and an image with lower emotional impact used in the strategic bombing article, though if the article covers the effect of press coverage of the vietnam war, that use seems reasonable - this image was historically significant for that. In any case, the image itself is almost certainly fair use with the article about the photographer, since that's clearly review and criticism of the works of the photographer. Jamesday 12:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

This image is copyrighted. It's not our place to determine if it's legal for us to use it. Copyrighted work can not be used on wikipedia. See here (http://www.asiansinamerica.org/museum/1003_museum.html) for proof of copyright. — マイケル ₪ 16:20, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This image is obviously still under copyright, and the people you see using it have either paid for it (BBC) or are using it illegally (everyone else, including the person or people who keeps putting it back.) I also do not think it is a good example of strategic bombing. This would really fall more under a tactical scope. -Joseph 17:01, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

The copyright holder is never granted a monopoly on fair use of a work. No license or permission is required in such cases. Others are not using it in a copyright infringing way if their use is fair. Jamesday 02:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line

I agree, we should be able to use the image under fair use. Unfortunately our own terms of use prohibit such use. This image IS copyrighted. When someone uploads an image, the following text is displayed "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Clearly, the copyright holder of the file DID NOT agree to lisense it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright. Whenever you edit a page, it clearly states "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" We don't have permission from the copyright holder to use this image, we don't have permission from the copyright holder to release this image under the GFDL. Therefore, we can not use this image, even if it does fall under fair use. — マイケル ₪ 18:39, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use is fine here on en. See Wikipedia:Uploading images. Not preferred but en does not delete fair use images - it waits until there is a better replacement available. Jamesday 02:22, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest requesting permission from the AP — if that is possible. It may be difficult to get the attention of whoever has the authority to give permissions in a huge organization like that, but then agin, Wikipedia is getting more and more influential. Heck, I think we've been quoted in AP a few times! :) Neutrality 22:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image looks stretched

Does this image look stretched, like the proportions are incorrect to anyone else? — マイケル ₪ 17:04, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

no, the girl is emaciated from malnutrition ... I think the proportions are right.Pedant

from VfD

On 7 August 2004, this image was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg for a record of the debate. Rossami 07:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

I've added this image back on copyvio and I may be stirring up a hornet's nest from a few months ago but this image is about as clear cut a copyright vio as one can imagine. It's clearly an AP photo, they own it, if you want it from them you need to have their permission and that will require crossing their palms with silver. Yes it won the Pulitzer, yes it's famous but it still is COPYRIGHTED. What next, we're going to be posting .mov files of Casablanca and whatnot because if its historical importance?

Every legitimate site out there clearly states that they have permission from AP to use the photo and clearly we do not. Using images like this damages the credibility of Wikipedia IMHO.

Finally, as a photographer myself I find it hard to justify our stance that we should deprive Mr. Ut of his right to profit from use of his property that he so clearly is entitled to profit from. --Wgfinley 03:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contact With AP

On 17-March I sent an email to AP requesting permission to use this photo and others (Image:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg and Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg to name a couple) that they own the rights to. After no response I sent them a fax on 29-March and they called me this morning. The discussion did not go well.

The woman who called is in their licensing department (unfortunately she called me pretty early and roused me from slumber so I didn't grab her name, I have her number though to call for further contact) and once she started checking the site with me on the phone she was pretty agitated albeit politely so. I gave her some background on WP, explained the site is free and its reference value and that we make an effort to properly attribute photos to the copyright owner when asserting fair use of the image. Obviously they don't agree with our fair use assertion. I believe her exact response was "how could they reasonably believe that fair use would apply to those Pullitzer Prize winning images?"

I mentioned that I would like to secure permissions to use the photos free while honoring their copyright and that would include how they would want the image used, credited, linked, etc. She stated that they would look into the other images on the site and that they would be in contact with WP on the issue. My impression was, though she didn't state it, since we're already using the photos they were none too pleased. I did as much damage control as I could but I believe they will likely be contacting us for removal of the images. --Wgfinley 17:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Permission Obtained from AP

I received an email today in response I sent to AP:

Mr. Finley:

I am assistant general counsel for The Associated Press, and I write in response to your fax of March 29, 2005 to AP Wide World Photos on behalf of Wikipedia.

With respect to the two specific photographs you mention – Nick Ut’s Pulitizer Prize-winning image of Vietnamese children fleeing a napalm attack, and Joe Rosenthal’s photo of the flag raising on Iwo Jima – Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Nick Ut / The Associated Press; Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press.

With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use.

Sincerely,

David Tomlin

Assistant General Counsel

The Associated Press

As such I've changed the tagging of the photos and will be working on proper attribution for the pages that use them.

--Wgfinley 20:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)