Talk:Air France Flight 447/Image discussions

1 June 2009 13.31
This image is CC and nicer than the current image. I don't know how to use Wiki yet though! see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/sizes/o/ Interesting though as that flickr page says it is an A320-203, not ~200? Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that image ok? Otis Jimmy  One  11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We'd really prefer one in Air France colours. If we can't get that, Airbus colours might be OK. Evercat (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use", subject to correct licencing and rationale being given. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've pinged bruno muthelet who claims the copyright over this photo (linked from article infobox)... hopefully he will be able to make it available under a suitable license, however in the mean time perhaps we can use a low-res version under fair use? That would certainly be better than having some other airline's logo/colours. -- samj in out 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the actual plane by the way, according to its tail number. Bad taste aside, Mjroots is probably right - I'll get to it. -- samj in out 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any bad taste in using the most accurate image. Evercat (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the bad taste was about the objective, but not very empathetic phrase "As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use"". Arnoutf (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. In any case, I think if we must use a copyrighted image it should be made much smaller than the current 1024 pixel one... Evercat (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Working on it. -- samj in out 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But to be honest I think our fair use claim is suspect. No doubt with sufficient effort we could either acquire permission to use some image, or get a new image of an identical plane. I would support deletion. Evercat (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support deletion as policy says "the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible"  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a photo of a plane and we need... a photo of a plane. Were it a photo of 10 planes we could cut the other 9 out, but it's not so we can't. Would you prefer half a plane? -- samj in out 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Permission has been requested but in any case I believe fair use is applicable regardless of whether permission could be obtained (that being the point of fair use after all). It's not an "identical plane" that we're looking for but the plane. -- samj in out 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the article doesn't really need a photo of the exact plane. A photo of an identical plane would be just as good. Evercat (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree Evercat. I don't really think there is a strong case to keep the image but anyway see how it goes.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, a photo of an "identical" plane (aside from not being identical) would not be "just as good", especially when none is offered and we have one available to us under fair use. -- samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The current photo has already been tagged for deletion due to copyvio. I scanned Commons and Flickr, but found no suitably licensed images of Air France A330's. Might be worth pinging one of the Flickr authors for permission.   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea mate.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CSD F9 specifically excludes "images used under a claim of fair use" and as such was inappropriately tagged and will almost certainly be removed by an admin in due course. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about just using the wikinews image? Jddriessen (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ...actually, it looks like theyre having similar problems


 * Because it's poor quality and not even the aircraft in question. Our readers are best served by a good quality photograph of the actual aircraft in question and fair use allows for this. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you... just looking for viable alternatives :) Jddriessen (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This one on Flickr is CC non-commercial share-alike: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/


 * Much prefer using that one. Evercat (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That image is noncommercial and non-derivative. That's a no-go. For now, the only free one is the one we have at Wikinews. Emails have gone out requesting something better, high-quality free pictures of the actual jet, and we are likely to get these within 24 hours. For now, there is no alternative. Much searching has been done. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know the tail registration number of the aircraft? If someone can find that out, I can almost guarantee that I can find a suitable image of that aircraft. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. Reg is F-GZCP.  Photo here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1230400/L/  I have emailed the photographer about a release to Wikipedia under the applicable Fair-Use rules. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another GREAT photograph of this aircraft (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A330-203/1054322/L/&sid=3e95b56cbd1a2fcedb67c13dd0c86a95). A full listing of photos of this aircraft can be found here .  --Strikerforce (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have secured the photographer's permission to use the first photograph that I linked to. I have asked him to upload it to Wikipedia and provide the appropriate release. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently the article sports an image of "An Air France Airbus A330-200 aircraft, similar to the missing plane". Am I the only person here who thinks this is %@$#@!# ridiculous when photos of the actual plane are available for [fair] use? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have some f****ng patience (oh look, I can swear too, doesn't that make me hard? No, no it doesn't). The aircraft could only be fair use if you wanted to get the tail number in as AFAIK that is the only difference; besides, permissions requests are pending for the plane in question and I have little doubt these will be fruitfull in time. Is it so hard to wait a few days? It isn't like it disapeared last year. It's been gone 24 hours. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perrin: A A320-203 is a A320-200, same as it's also a A320. By giving a longer and more specific number you're specifying more and more the exact configuration. 99.233.192.102 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I strongly suggest you add the spot for the uknown location the plane was at at 2:14 AM and/or one small red dot for when the last transmission was received and another for the first indication that there was no contact came in. So that we know that the location of the plane crash is not a specific spot, but rather a zone within the known time interval. Is that possible? Thanks,Shadiac (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1 June 14.02
The image File:Air_France_Airgus_A330-200_F-GZCP.jpg was deleted through speedy deletion. Could someone add the external link to the source as part of the external links, for this image? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source was http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=081451 if that helps. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you guys are amazing[ly lame] when it comes to evicting content that we're actually allowed to use. Loving that the article now sports an image that is of some other plane. Success? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1 June 14.03
File:F-GZCP.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/   70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion, rather I've disputed whether fair use can be justified. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it need fair use? It is Atribution Share-Alike Creative Commons... We can use the full res photo here alongside the author credit which has already been givenSergei Perrin (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't Attribution Share-Alike, it is Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works which isn't accepted as a free license for Wikipedia purposes so it would have to be used under fair use here and I don't think that can be justified. Adambro (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous... I wandered by and found the article with some photo of another airline's plane, colours and logo so I spent an hour or so finding a photo of the actual plane, trimmed, reduced and uploaded it along with a solid fair use rationale. Of course debate ensued and my work (and others') was destroyed, the article now sporting some other random plane. This is too insane for words, but I hope those wasting everyone's time feel better for ensuring that our readers are denied the most accurate coverage possible. Rest assured that I won't be wasting your time in future with my apparently inappropriate contributions. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1 June 15.26

 * Or the actual plane (fair use image)

What image should be used? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews uses File:AirFranceA330Crop.jpg, the generic AF A330 image. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would maintain that File:Mea a330-200 f-omeb takeoff arp.jpg is the most appropriate image. Whilst it isn't of an aircraft in AF livery, it is a much better photo of the aircraft that File:AirFranceA330Crop.jpg so I consider it more useful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found one on the Swedish Wikipedia... File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image changing
On every reload there is a new image. This is crazy. Shouldn't this article be protected? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have to have full protection, since logged in users are also changing the image around. If it had full protection, only admins could update the page. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at least we would know who did it.
 * You didn't sign. And you already know who did it, since you have an edit history. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the edit history I can determine that  15:37, 1 June 2009 Camilo Sanchez (talk | contribs) (25,941 bytes) (→Image changing) 
 * 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And it wouldn't change the fact that the image would change frequently. IOW it would be a useless action. Do you dislike non-logged in users? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No comments on that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AirFranceFlight447.jpg
The current image (as of the last time I loaded the page ;P ) is File:AirFranceFlight447.jpg, but this image has NO SOURCE INFORMATION and NO LICENSE. So it is very problematic. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be used until information is provided. I suspect it is a copyright violation anyway. Adambro (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was speedily deleted. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, by me, since some users insisted on adding it but didn't seem as enthusiastic about adding the source/licensing details and it is probably reasonable to presume it would turn out to be a copyright violation anyway. Adambro (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Non Air France image

 * Having the image of another airline is just as bad. It gives the impression that MEA is some form of subsidiary or franchise airline of Air France. Ask yourself if you would put this image on the Main Page? - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is so terrible about it? The caption makes it clear that it shows a similar plane not the exact one. I don't think readers are going to be misled by it. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important issue is to have the plane of Air France and not mostly Airbus A330-200, Not many people can tell plane model anyway Sergei Perrin (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's moot now though since a high-quality AF A330 image has been found. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I take it you guys like the one I found... File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Unless we can find a photo of the exact plane I think that will be the best photo available. It is indeed a moot point now but I'd very much question the "Not many people can tell plane model anyway" so it only matters that it is an Air France aircraft attitude. That is ridiculous. The most important aspect is the aircraft type, not what colours it is painted in. We are supposed to be an educational resource so people will learn from the information we provide, not a tabloid newspaper just wanting a photo of any AF aircraft just to make their article look pretty. Adambro (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When it comes to big white planes, I don't know many people who can tell the difference between twin engine passenger planes. Maybe the Jumbo and A380 are a bit obvious, but everything single deck, two engine is pretty much the same to the average person Sergei Perrin (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst that is true it doesn't make it appropriate to use any photo of an AF plane. As I've said, we're supposed to be an educational resource so we should be looking for opportunities to improve the knowledge and understanding our readers have of subjects. The most important aspect is the plane type not the paint scheme. By using an image of the correct type we give people the opportunity to learn what an A330-200 looks like rather than just what the AF livery looks like which is much less important. Adambro (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the most important is that it is an Air France flight from Brazil to Paris; hence it should show that it is an Air France plane. The next thing is to show that it is an Airbus. Then that it is one from the 330 family, only then is it relevant it is an 330-200. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your logic quite bizarre. The most relevant aspect in a plane crash (presumably) is the type of plane, not the colours of paint applied to the outside. It is much more valuable educationally to show readers what the type of plane involved is, not the livery of the particular airline involved. However, as has been noted, this is a moot point now we seem to have a photo of the correct airline and the correct type. Adambro (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point now and there is probably some policy to cover this, but I think the most obvious answer is that if the photo is misleading then leave the photo out. I mean, it's just not that relevant to the article (unlike e.g. a diagram showing the flight path and where the last communication was or photos of debris). Argel1200 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If at all possible the photo used should be of the actual plane. Anything else is problematic even if it seems valid. Arydberg (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on fair use
A while back I removed a non-free image, of the specific plane, which was being used under the argument of fair use. I replaced it with the previous free image which depicts the same plane type in the same colours. I do not believe that we can claim fair use in this case; see: Fair use. Specifically: Thanks/wangi (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"" — the use of an image of the same plane type achieves this, there is no visual difference between the two at resolutions appropriate for fair-use (as in you cannot see the registration anyway).
 * "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" — the claimed fair-use image has potential commercial use by the original author
 * "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" — the use of the actual plane image vs one of the same types would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

3 June 05.12

 * Air France Airbus A330-200 (CC3.0 image)
 * Air France Airbus A330-200 (CC2.0 image)
 * F-GZCP, the actual plane involved (fair use image)

Well, the image has been changing some more...

File:F-GZCP.jpg has also been nominated for deletion.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The FFD discussion for F-GZCP.jpg is at Files_for_deletion/2009_June_3 &mdash; 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Air France Flight 447/Image discussions for infobox image discussions. /wangi (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are old archived discussions. The image in the infobox is shifting now. A new discussion is possibly necessary. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not archived discussions, but rather centralised to keep it in one place. /wangi (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are dated, and there is no banner saying a centralized discussion area has been created. So how is it not an archive? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've got neither the time nor inclination to get into a meta discussion. If you want to discuss the infobox image then go ahead, but it's really all been said already and until such point we have a free image of the actual plane the current image really should be left as-is. Certainly it would be wrong to try and claim fair-use on a non-free image. Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one can find the "centralized discussion" it's not much use. People editing the article and looking at this talk page certainly won't see it. It's a walled garden. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wangi - please stop misrepresenting Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. Wikipedia does not prohibit fair use of images - we have a detailed policy on doing so.  Another image of the crash aircraft which was fully free would justify replacement of the fair use one we have now (which is CC-BY-NC-ND anyways - and therefore nearly completely Wikipedia "free" anyways, only the NC being an issue).  But other images of other A330 aircraft miss the historical significance of the particular F-GZCP.jpg image being of the actual crashed aircraft.  Photos of historical events or things which are now not freely recreateable as the thing happened, or went away, are one of the clearly allowed fair use categories.  This plane is now gone, unfortunately.  We can't go take new photos.  If you want to convince the Flickr photographer to CC-BY or CC-BY-ND or GFDL release it, fine.  If you can find another, fine.  This is historically relevant here and now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (interjecting) George. I am unconvinced by your claim in the deletion debate of having been close to the defining of the NFCC, because the foundation is very explicit - NC is not, and never will be, considered an 'almost acceptable' license for Wikipedia. It has the same status as any other non-free image. In fact, because the owner explicitly does not want commercial exploitation, you can argue his resolve is more against having his work used on Wikipedia than people who casually select all rights reserved on Flickr, without knowing the complexities behind cc licensing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We allow fair use images if there are no reasonable free versions/replacements. George William Herbert, I argued your point regarding the Comair image, but the community consensus was that a photo of a similar aircraft was a reasonable representation of the aircraft while intact. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I resent the comment that i am misrepresenting Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. Clearly our views differ, but i have backed mine up considerably at Files_for_deletion/2009_June_3 and Talk:Air France Flight 447/Image discussions. A particular note on the former - this was a discussion on the issue, a discussion you should have participated in before recently changing the infobox image back to a non-free image. You cannot have a "nearly free" image - the photographer does not want us to use the photograph commercially, we should respect that. In anycase there are more appropriate non-free images of the actual plane - ones taken on its final take off. /wangi (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an observer I can't help but to think that this is incredibly lame and just works to ensure that our readers receive sub-standard coverage. An image of the actual plane is incredibly important in coverage of its' demise, even if just for sentimental reasons (hence real images being used in grown-up coverage of the incident). I don't plan to discuss it here as I've already wasted plenty of time trimming, reducing and uploading the original image, but a little more objectivity in place of the rampant wikilawyering wouldn't go astray. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss how you can assert a lower resolution image being used simply for sentimental reasons, is 'proving better coverage'. The free image is of a higher resolution, and indistinguishable from the 'actual plane'. In fact, the free image was taken in Feb 2009, your low quality upload is from 2007, so it could even be wrong itself in certain details, if we are claiming visual accuracy to any degree. I am genuinely sorry you have wasted time uploading it, but I am afraid we are all in that same boat. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

5 June 12.54
File:F-GZCP.jpg is nominated for (speedy? or atleast administrative) deletion because it is a fair-use image that is currently unused. Note, there is an active FFD on this image as well, so it is double tagged for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's confusing and perhaps unneeded duplication... However the "files for deletion" discussion will be decided before the "unused fair-use" time is up... SO I wouldn't worry about it too much. /wangi (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't be if it's relisted... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)