File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg

Not sure this is fair use
The problem is that the image as reproduced here is (1) fairly large and (2) is used for precisely the purpose that it would have been used anyway. This differs from situations where the fair use is different from the original (like parody). Also, keep in mind that the journalists covering the perp walk reportedly waited outside for as long as 15 hours to get a photo of Strauss-Kahn's perp walk. Journalists who work incredibly hard waiting for the right moment to take unique, historically important photos tend to be extremely protective of their intellectual property rights. Bob Tur's notorious litigation battles to protect his IP rights to the Reginald Denny beating footage are the quintessential example. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 300px is the upper limit we generally allow for fair use. I had to reduce this slightly as it was. As for transformative use, the FUC say nothing about permissible fair use needing to be transformative. This is justified under FUC 8: "... its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". As such it has four paragraphs of accompanying commentary pertinent to the image itself. Journalists usually don't own the copyright to their images, their employers do, and in any event there were many photographers from many organizations present so the image is hardly unique to any of them to justify being that litigious over. It's not like Joe Rosenthal being the only photographer at the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
"Copyright owned by X" is not a speedy rationale. All non-free images are copyrighted by someone. As for fair use, it's possible to contest the rationales given, but that's a topic for WP:FFD or the article talk page. Considering this image was illegal in France and is a topic covered in the article, I think there's a case to be made, at least, which means it isn't speedyable. --SnowFire (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also since I see this image was brought up for deletion in a process twice before, this is extra non-speedyable. Speedy deletion processeses can't happen after an article / file / etc. has survived a formal deletion process once. SnowFire (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Copyright concerns are an exception to the rule about prior deletion discussions, and the prior discussions did not squarely address the specific issue here (press agency photos). The article text also does not address the particular image involved, a matter related to the copyright issue which was similarly not addressed in the previous deletion discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From whence do you get the idea that "the article text also does not address the particular image involved"?:

"The police department's handling of the Strauss-Kahn case was heavily criticized in his native France. Élisabeth Guigou, who as French minister of justice in 2000 had lobbied successfully for the passage of a law that forbids the publication of any images of an identifiable defendant in handcuffs who has not yet been convicted, criticized the walk, stating: "I found that image to be incredibly brutal, violent and cruel...I don't see what the publication of images of this type adds." Another former member of the French cabinet, Jack Lang, Minister of Culture in the early 1980s, likened the perp walk to a lynching. French Senator Jean-Pierre Chevènement, a longtime acquaintance of Strauss-Kahn's, wrote on his blog that "The heart can only contract before these humiliating and poignant images ... A horrible global lynching! And what if it were all a monstrous injustice?" The French newspaper Le Monde editorialized: "When one of the world's most powerful men is turned over to press photos, coming out of a police station handcuffed, hands behind his back, he is already being subjected to a sentence which is specific to him...Is it necessary that a man's fame deprive him of his presumption of innocence in the media? Because if they must assuredly be equal before the justice system, all men are not equal before the press.""

Contested deletion
This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... See the other two deletion debates. --Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)