File talk:RubelLife19561001a.png

Fair Use of This Image in John H. Rubel?
User:We hope has challenged whether this image may be used in the article John H. Rubel. There is no dispute on whether the image is copyright. Let's assume that it is. (It remains very possible that copyright was not renewed, but that line of argument is not necessary here.)

The issues are whether use violates WP's "no free equivalent" policy, and whether use is allowed by U.S. fair use rules. The justification in both cases is that this is not being used as a replaceable image of the subject John H. Rubel. The article does not particularly need an image of the subject. per se. Rather the image is being used as critical commentary on the ad itself in the context of the subject's biography. Rubel was an early executive in what we would now call the "defense contractor industry". Hughes (copyright holder of the ad) was then trying to make the case that people such as Rubel were "new men" and that its industry deserved special merit in the eyes of the American public, and ultimately the special political treatment that it receives today. In illustrating this point in the context of Rubel's bio, the article is making critical commentary on the ad, which thereby can be reproduced (in necessary part) under fair use.

A main criterion for fair use in the context of critical commentary is minimization. The ad is shown only in part for just this reason. Only enough is shown so as to further the critical commentary: the person cited as the exemplar (Rubel), and the relevant editorial claims by Hughes ("new kind of man", "jobs never existed before").

Generally, U.S. courts hold that the needs of critical commentary, especially when there is even a small element of political issues (as here), outweigh the right of the copyright holder to prevent reproduction. This is especially true when the work in question is "commercial speech" (which is accorded a low level of protection) and when the reproduction in no way competes economically with the copyright holder's right of reproduction (as here).

Hope this clarifies the issues. Await an administrator's wise decision.

ServiceAT (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took User:We hope's suggestion of searching for copyright renewal. This turned out to be pretty easy. The U.S. Copyright Office records show various copyrights by "Hughes Aircraft Company" in the period 1982-1985 (where this renewal would have had to have been). This shows that the company still had that name. In this period, there is NOT a renewal for anything that could possibly be this advertisement. I therefore conclude that copyright was not renewed, and that the proper tag is. Could someone delete the deletion tags? (I don't know if I'm allowed to do this, and in any case I don't know how.) Thanks! ServiceAT (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)