Talk:Tomoko and Mother in the Bath

Including the photograph
Might I suggest including a web-resolution copy of the photograph in the article, such as the one at the listed (not the slightly larger resolution version accessible by clicking)? Provided the image was of a low enough resolution not to have a deleterious effect on the commercial value of the original photograph, and that it was being used in an educational context (which this article would fall under), Fair Use would cover the prescence of such a significant photograph (cf. Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, and Image:Kent State massacre.jpg.) I understand the (reasonable) objection by the photographer that the work not be displayed, but legally (if perhaps not ethically) Wikipedia could do so. At the very least could a request for permission be sent to the email provided at the site, outlining Wikipedia's non-profit, educational ideals? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did consider this. Certainly I think that the image would be acceptable under Fair Use, perhaps using the Template:HistoricPhoto tag. The reason I didn't upload the image was because of the express wish of the family not to republish the photograph. The image is still widely available on other websites, so those who are curious can find it if they want. Indeed, I provided a link at the bottom for that very reason.


 * In terms of asking permission, I have already e-mailed Aileen Archive to ask permission to use a number of Smith's Minamata images on the Minamata disease page, but I have yet to hear back from them. The Tomoko photograph is not listed on their website and considering the very public withdrawal of the photograph, I don't think permission, even for Fair Use, would be forthcoming. Bobo12345 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While I still believe that the article would benefit from a reference image attached to the lead, I'll wait to see what opinions arrive with the article's appearance on the Main Page. If there's little interest in adding an image, or the general consensus is to respect the photographer's wishes, I'll leave well enough alone. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, arrived from the Main Page and wondered why it was not included, until I read all the way through the article. I fully support your decision not to include the photograph given the family's wishes and their continued ownership of the copyright, as well as its continued availability elsewhere online.


 * Might I suggest that a) the introduction of the article make that very clear and b) a detailed written description of the image be included as well? Daniel Case 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with its omission here; the job of an encyclopedia is to inform its readers, and this is a very notable photograph. Surely we wouldn't remove the photograph of Phan Thị Kim Phúc if her living relatives decided they no longer wanted it published?  I don't suggest that we violate copyright, but as the photograph is extremely historically notable, using a low-resolution reproduction of it alongside academic/historical discussion is clearly fair use---indeed this is nearly exactly the sort of thing fair use was designed for. --Delirium 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The image creator's estate took very deliberate steps to discourage publication, including restoring the copyright to the family. Phuc's relatives do not own the copyright; the Uemura family does. Our fair-use terms should consider that.


 * Yes, the image is widely available. However, I've seen more defensible fair-use images get bounced from articles for less. I'm fine with the link. Daniel Case 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well similarly I arrived from the main page and wondered why it was absent (not really bothering to read the article). While I'm in two minds, I think I'm leaning towards agreeing to exclude it due to the wishes of the family. It is of course the job of an encylopaedia to inform its readers however we still have to strike a balance. I don't think many people deny we could legally use it under fair use. But just because we could legally do something doesn't mean we should do something. Ultimately as with all things in wikipedia it comes down to achieving a consensus among editors and failing that trying to decide which is closest to consensus. Nil Einne 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, although I appreciate the point your trying to make, I think you've failed to appreciate the circumstances of the Phan Thị Kim Phúc cases. For starters this wasn't posed with permission but was a snap of the moment. Secondly, Phan Thị Kim Phúc is still alive and has never asked anyone to withdraw the use of the photo. Should she do so in the future we will of course have to consider this but this seems rather unlikely to happen given her subsiquent work (and ultimately the circumstances are different enough that it wouldn't be surprising if our decision is different). Should she die and her living relatives ask to withdraw use of photo, this would be a rather different case since during her life she was able to fully understand and appreciate the use of the photo and gave no indication she did not want it to be use. As such, the wishes of her living relatives will carry far less weight (taken together with the different circumstances surrounding the photo means the will be little use in considering the two cases together). Nil Einne 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to chime in for inclusion. I think family wishes should be ignored unless an encyclopedia-wide policy took this into account--that pictures regretfully published will be removed if someone related to it wishes so.  I think this is important for consistency's sake and general NPOV across articles.  The fact that it is copyright owners discouraging publication may make a difference but if that is the case then this should be handled as with other cases where there is a decent fair use claim and the copyright holder wishes to not have it published.  Possibly a callous response... gren グレン 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

why aint the picture included?

I also came from the Main Page and I realy think the picture should be included. If you are to write about a photograph you must show it. Copyright is not an issue, this is legal. Respecting the wish of the family is not a good argument. If the wish was realy respected, the whole article should have been deleted. --Jan Smolik 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jan Smolik and Gren,
 * A. It's not against copyright to publish it, and
 * B. It's against the wishes of the family to even have an article about it. Ledcraft 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said previously, on a legal basis I agree that it would be probably be acceptable to use the photograph on Wikipedia under fair use. However from an ethical point of view I don't think we should go against the express wish of the family not to have it republished. Personally, I think providing the link to it at the bottom of the article strikes the right balance.


 * Also, I don't think the family would be against the existence of this article. They have been heavily involved in campaigning for Minamata disease victims their whole lives so I imagine anything which increases awareness of the issues surrounding it would be welcomed. Bobo12345 09:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I realy do not want to campaign for this particular case. I did not work on this article and it is right of its authors to either include photograph or not. But generaly I see not including information because it is a wish of the subject as a bad precedens. Anyway we included photograph of Monica Lewinsky, although it is probably hurting her and causing her trouble in her personal life (although she did not do anything realy bad). But we are not doing anything more than publishing reliable second hand information that is already known. (Just to the argument in the second paragraph: family used the photograph in the campaign. And the article is not about the disease nor the campaign but about the photograph). --Jan Smolik 09:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the photo should be included. Note that there are grounds for including it, but as Nil Einne points out above can does not equal should. Given that the family chooses not to have this paraded around it seems civil to take their wishes into consideration. There are links to the image in the article should someone really wish to see it, but the article is descriptive enough that I don't think we need it here. Z iggurat 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

After the Main Page
Coming back after the Main Page exposure, it looks like the inclusion of a photograph did prove contentious, but ended in a decision of no consensus. Barring any very persuasive arguments, I'd advise sticking to the decision of the original author of the article (as per the AmE v CwE argument), and go with the compromise of a link at the bottom of the page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested template for photo issue
I suggest using the template at Template:External media, which I believe is perfectly suited to this situation. The web-site can be attached using the template, and placed in a more visible part of the page near the top or alongside the "Capture" section. If there are no objections, I'll do it in the next couple days.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Confused
If the family has refused to allow the image to be reproduced, and we are intending to honor that intent, then we CANNOT link to an external site showing the image, because THAT site is then engaged in copyright violation, which we cannot link to per our policies on external links (like most youtube videos, etc). If, however, fair use allows the reproduction, WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder, for purposes of discussion of the image itself (NOT for discussion of pollution, birth defects, maternal love, or for political advocacy, fundraising, etc etc), then we have every right to reproduce it here, albeit in low resolution and ONLY for this article. I really dont understand the arguments presented here for why we cannot reproduce the image, but can link to a site that is violating the request we just agreed to. Note that the website we linked to is a COMMERCIAL website using this image as part of their list of notable images, to promote their business. How is that any better than our proposed reproduction? We cant have it both ways.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I didn't know this background until a colleague told me of it today. Linking to an image in breach of copyright is contributory infringement - and furthermore the copyright statement on the linked image ("© The Heirs of W. Eugene Smith") is inconsistent with that site's own linked elaboration on the copyright ("The Heirs of W. Eugene Smith retain the copyrights to all of his photographs with the exception of the "Minamata" series") as well as Aileen Smith's own statement that the copyright belongs to the Uemura family. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the external link for now. Since i dont know if we can "use" the image here, I will choose one of our 2 options: to not link and not reproduce. That doesnt mean i have determined we cannot reproduce it, only that i am sure we cannot link to THAT site, at least for now. i am not sure what we can do with this image. if someone can show that the actual copyright status of the image does allow for fair use (remember, the family not allowing the use of the image is their not granting the right to reproduce commercially; fair use usually means just that: no permission is needed to reproduce, as long as the reproduction doesnt interfere with the commercial interests of the copyright holder), then please upload the image, or link to a site which unambiguously is authorized to reproduce it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

About the lens
The Capture section current states "Taken with a Minolta SRT-101 and super wide 16mm Rokkor lens." This lens description is probably not correct. It appears that all versions of Minolta's 16mm Rokkor lenses were fisheye type lenses (http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/). A characteristic of fisheye lenses is their very strong barrel distortion. Photographs made with fisheye lenses show straight lines as if they were curved. In the photograph that is the topic of this article, the straight lines of the bath appear to be straight rather than curved. The photograph shows no evidence of the strong barrel distortion that is a characteristic of all fisheye lens photographs. Based on its appearance, the photograph was likely made with a moderate wide angle lens or a normal lens, not a fisheye or a super wide. The lens is not an important detail about the photo, but in the absence of reliable information about which lens was used, the description of the lens should be omitted. 100.8.73.140 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)