Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-14/Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed

Where is the dispute?
A non-free photo is being used in the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. A consensus of Fair Use was determined by an Admin at a. The consensus was not unanimous, however, and objections have been raised that the image is in violation of policy.

The list of the users involved.


 * User:Thebutterfly uploaded the image to Commons
 * User:The Egyptian Liberal linked it originally
 * User:VernoWhitney rushed the consensus and closed it in 2 hours –– only 3 hours before the photo was deleted
 * User:USchick initiated this request

Others involved in the Non-free content review.
 * User:Ocaasi
 * User:Masem
 * User:Moonriddengirl
 * User:Wnt
 * User:Silver seren
 * User:Thparkth
 * User:Soundvisions1
 * User:Berean Hunter
 * User:Smallbones
 * User:USchick

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

What is the dispute?
The photo was being discussed here Non-free content review. Three hours before the photo was scheduled for deletion, a consensus process was rushed (closed after 2 hours –– unbecoming behavior for an administrator) and consensus was reached that yes, Fair Use was established.

Editors variously object that consensus violates of criteria #1, 2, 5, 6, 8 AND 10 of NFCC, including the Image Use Policy.

Statement by USchick
The photo is a direct copyright violation. The image has not been published in a credible source, it has only appeared on a Facebook page. It does not meet the burden of proof.

Policy: Non-free content criteria Enforcement: To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

What would you like to change about this?
Since copyright is a serious violation, I would like someone to review the policy, apply it to this case, and have their decision be binding. Preferably a legal opinion from the Foundation.

How do you think we can help?
By enforcing the copyright policy.

Mediator notes

 * Closed. The requester has indicated that this case has been resolved. If the parties need the Mediation Cabal's assistance at any time, please feel free to open a new case. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * MebCab decisions aren't binding, since Mediation cases here are only intended as suggestions. If you're looking for binding decisions then ArbCom's the right place to go, however, considering the dispute is not one of the utmost seriousness I'd say taking it to the appropriate Admin Noticeboard would be more appropriate. Hopefully this helps. Regards, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 10:33pm • 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as clarification, what I meant by serious was that the deletion or inclusion of the image isn't a case that requires several users to be dragged into the dispute resolution process. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 10:35pm • 11:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this has already been resolved and can be closed. USchick (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)