File talk:D James Kennedy.jpg

I am stunned. A US flag and a church in the background of a picture of an American pastor is offensive? (Don't think I buy that other argument about fair use, sorry). I think that this sort of image is perfectly respectable for a patriotic american, and a man of God. What is wrong with it?--Filll (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is the first occurance of the word "flag" I could find on this talk page. Whatever are you talking about? Ra2007 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As if you don't know. Well, I see. You do not want to explain then? Just pretend you don't know? Do you personally find the US flag offensive? Do you have a problem with a picture in front of a church? Are you some kind of atheist or antiamerican ? --Filll (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured it out. A cropping of the image occured.[1]. I agree with Filll on this point, but can also see that uncropped the image might be considered POV or promotional by others. Perhaps the person who cropped it is just trying to fit in at wikipedia. Ra2007 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "offensive" about the flag, it just isn't necessary. This is a biographical article, not a tribute. We don't need to paint him as All-American, apple pie on the fourth of July James Kennedy. The artistic expression made by the selection of that backdrop isn't needed (minimal use possible on a fair use image) and I felt that just a portrait with no background would be more appropriate to a biographical article. A portrait of him in ministerial robes would be better, but the only one available wasn't at a suitable angle. I decided to simply crop the image we were already using. You can see [2] for the press photos available on their website. Personally, I would rather remove the thing completely and was flipping a coin over whether to go to IFD. Hear me out for a minute - when Dr. Falwell died, we were using a photo taken at a Liberty football game from a distance. It was terrible quality. I emailed his ministry and asked if they would be willing to release a high quality image under the GFDL. They did and so that article has a very nice image. But in this article, we are already using a high quality image. If I were to email Dr. Kennedy's ministry and ask for one, they would say, "why should we release one under these licensing terms when you are already using it without those terms". Using a fair use image inhibits obtaining free images. I have obtained a good number of freely licensed images during my time in Wikipedia. For example, Image:Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall modified2.jpg was an image that was all over the news and in every newspaper after the shooting. I emailed the kid that took it and he released it under the GFDL. That image is freely licensed now. But if we are willing to settle for a claim of fair use, we will NEVER get images like these released freely. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't use any fair use images of modern subjects other than logos, TV screenshots, etc. There is ALWAYS a possibility of getting a freely licensed image of a sporting event or person, but we aren't going to get it if we just take the same image, slap a fair use tag on it, and use it anyway. Dr. Kennedy's ministry, just like Dr. Falwell's, has a vested interest in this article looking nice and if the choice for them is have a nice image vs have no image at all or have some garbage image that some guy took of Dr. Kennedy in the mall or something, they will pick having the nice image. But if the choice is providing us an image under the GFDL or providing us an image with no license to redistribute, they are obviously going to choose the more restrictive license. So I know this goes outside the bounds of your question ... but I think it's an important point. --B (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I personally like the flag and church. We can lower the quality in other ways you know.--Filll (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That image was already as small as you could get and still discern the features (other than the flag). It looks like something you'd see on a fundraising brochure, not an encyclopedia article. At any rate, WP:FAIR#Policy 3b requires "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." We obviously have no fair use reason to use the whole thing when all we care about is showing what Kennedy looks like. --B (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to Image_talk:D_James_Kennedy.jpg. Ra2007 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why split it off to two different places? The image is only used here. --B (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that is where the crop occured. I'd recommend leaving a note about the discussion there here. Ra2007 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the flag and church.--Filll (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So noted. Please move (or copy) this discussion to the correct page. Ra2007 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, be bold and do it. As Jimbo says, "this is a wiki, after all." --B (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only edit the article D. James Kennedy. Ra2007 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

original uploader's comment

Certainly we would all agree that a free license image is preferable, but in the absence of one, the use of a press kit photo with a proper Fair Use Rationale is allowable and meets NFCC, where no freely licensed version is available as in this case where the individual is deceased.

As stated on the image page, the photo is from a press kit distributed to the media by Coral Ridge Ministries upon D. James Kennedy's death. I reduced it below 600px for Fair Use here, but did not further crop because it seemed to me that the Coral Ridge Church in the background and the juxtaposition with the American flag was most symbolic and visually representative of the subject's ministry, which emphasized America's ties to Christianity as discussed in the Wikipedia biographical article. However, if the consensus is to go with the cropped version, that's fine with me. JGHowes ^talk - 00:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no consensus to go with the cropped version. I like the flag and the church.--Filll (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the complete image works well and presents the image chosen by Coral Ridge Ministries, isn't cropping a bit of a problem with fair use of publicity photos? ... dave souza, talk 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not any moreso than a fair use screenshot from a television program. --B (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues (1) cropping and (2) using any image at all. As for the latter, please read my comments above. I CANNOT right now ask his ministry for a freely licensed image because we are using a fair use one. Per WP:FAIR, "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." In the case of the image on Jerry Falwell, Liberty never would have given us an image under the GFDL if we were already using one under a claim of fair use, nor could I ask for one with a straight face. (I suppose since it's email they wouldn't see my face, but that's beside the point.) Using this non-free image ensures that we will not receive a freely licensed one. As for the former, the flag and church are purely decorative and don't in any way enhance your understanding of Dr. Kennedy. If they do, we could take a photo of the church and flag ourselves. I think they actually detract from the image. The point of it is to show what he looks like and you can barely make anything in there out. I honestly had no idea that this would even be a disputed action - I thought it was about as non-controversial of an action as you could get. --B (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against asking for a GFDL image and explain that we'd greatly prefer that to a fair use image. I see no problem saying that with a straight face. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it should be highly disputed for several reasons.--Filll (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be highly disputed if anyone else had made the change? The thing that really gets me is this - suppose the current image had been one of the portraits just showing Kennedy and I changed it to be the flag/church/palm tree shot. I would have been accused of trying to turn the article into a recruiting brochure. That's what the thing looks like with this photo on it and I honestly had no idea that this would get people riled up. I wouldn't have done it if I had. The image isn't protected. Nothing is stopping you from changing it back. I'd rather completely delete it, though, because then I might be able to get one released under the GFDL. I'm not even going to contact his ministry, though, if we are using an image - there's no point in trying because I know what the answer will be. --B (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with a picture that looks like a recruiting brochure picture? This is how they chose to depict him. I thought that was your point; we should depict these people the way they and their organizations want them to be depicted, or at least give it plenty of weight. And now you want the opposite? Seems silly to me. Why is it offensive to you? It clearly seems to be. And I think your reasoning about the picture is wrong. Want me to contact them for you? I will. I have done this before and I will again if you don't want to.--Filll (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is offensive about it - you have used that term twice, not me. If you would like to contact Coral Ridge, [3] is the Coral Ridge general contact page and [4] gives media contact information. I would suggest both of those. As for the self-published artwork vs the self-published statements of beliefs, they are obviously two different things. In the latter, we're talking about facts. A biographical subject usually knows when they were born, what their parents' names were, what their political or religious believes are, etc. In the case of the former, (1) it's moot because anything we use is going to be self-published and (2) we want to use the most encyclopedic photo available that meets general content needs. The content need is to show what he looked like. There's no content reason to show palm trees, a flag, and a church and it detracts from the article. --B (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. B's position made sense, but I think JGHowes makes a really good point - if we're going to go with a fair use image, it makes sense to go with one that has symbolic/emblematic value. I'm not sure about the "less picture means less infringement" argument - do you have anything to back that up? I'd think that an infringement is an infringement, after all, and at least in the uncropped version we keep to the copyright holder's intent in terms of composition and symbolism. I'm inclined to favour the uncrop. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no infringement regardless of what picture or how we use it. The source website - http://www.djameskennedynews.com/ - released a group of photos for media organizations to use. There are a handful of them, but this one is probably the best although [5] is good too. The picture in the pulpit is blurred and the two showing his hands just look ... strange. Anyway, we are using this picture essentially with the permission of the copyright holder so there is no infringement in a legal sense - in other words, if they were to sue us for using the photo, we wouldn't even have to invoke a fair use defense - we are using the photo for the exact purpose for which they authorized its use. But regardless of any of that, Wikipedia's preference is to use non-free images in as limited of a manner as possible. The only reason we need a photo is to show what he looks like. Any use beyond that is excessive. This is a matter of WP policy, not US law. --B (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

No one else has commented in the last week and it appears that Guettardi, Filll, and dave sousa favor the uncropped version; B prefers the cropped version. Because CV infringement is not at issue here and an appropriate Fair Use rationale has been supplied for use of Non-Free media, I'm going to go ahead and revert to the original version I uploaded last September. JGHowes ^talk - 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)