Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-27 Nhat Hanh

Request details
Dispute over the use of a press photo and a freely licensed photo of the subject at Wiki Commons. I had obtained an alternative to the current photo that is now at Wikimedia Commons. The press photo, while acceptable until now, would never be permitted at Wiki Commons. It is not truly free.

Who are the involved parties?
User:Nightngle User:Mind_meal

What's going on?
We have been having a photograph insertion war.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to see this resolved. I believe free content is always superior to non-free content.
 * I've nominated the image for deletion - the editors at WP:IfD should be able to advise whether the image is acceptable. Addhoc (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I believe that when an author of a photo gives the same rationale for the terms for the use of their photo, it matters not if they use the designation CC version ___ or not, the meaning is the same. I don't believe that Creative Commons is a generally known or used term, except in limited circles, so it isn't unusual that the photographer of the Thich Nhat Hanh portrait didn't use a CC version designation. They have, however, allowed this portrait for uses specific to wikipedia and similar websites. Editorially, it makes this portrait more appropriate, give the biographical nature of the article. Additionally, when a wiki user mines photos from flickr and other sources, they are still obligated legally to verify that the photo is, indeed, the flickr users, to be able to give that CC designation or not. We all know that users download photos they like, then upload them to their flickr pages, so the burden of verification falls on the wiki users shoulders. Legal or not, I personally believe that it's unethical to upload a person's photo, regardless of the copyright designation, without gaining that person's permission if at all possible, which in this case seems reasonable. Nightngle (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you continue stating that this photograph was uploaded without permission, when you have been told numerous times that is not the case? Even if I did just upload it without asking, if it had the correct license there would be no infraction.(Mind meal (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC))