Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:My Lai massacre.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg

edit

As described below this image is claimed to be copyright and Ronald Haeberle has the rights to the photo. LIFE magazine has paid for the right to publish it. As well as AWB when they made their famous And Babies anti-vietnam poster Esemono (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-one of the most iconic public records of the Vietnam war, a matter of public record and the uploader makes multiple valid arguments for its inclusion. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because they didn't know about PD-USGov rules? Honestly: No idea. But it's not forbidden to pay for images that are PD. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt publishing Juggernaut LIFE magazine didn't know about public domain. They paid because Haeberle owns the copyright on this picture -- Esemono (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Haeberle was obviously a soldier at that time. Photos taken by US-soldiers during their duty are PD. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Haeberle's rationale was that he had two cameras. One a black and white army issued camera that he used for official duties and the other color one, that he took this picture with, was his own personal camera. Thus he owns the copyright for all images taken on his personal color camera. All pictures taken on his personal camera weren't submitted to the army. -- Esemono (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then he's done something illegal, probably. If he's on duty, it doesn't matter whether it was his own camera or not. He would really need to make clear that it was his free time when he took this photo, but I really doubt you can take a day "off" or so during a war. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great opinion but is it based in law at all? I would love it if every photo ever taken by a soldier was in the public domain. Then we could just start uploading the wealth of photos off Flicker that American GIs took in Iraq. There were multiple investigations in the My Lai incident including the Report of the Department of Army review of the preliminary investigations into the My Lai massacre. None mention that Haeberle was a criminal as you claim. Also, none claim that his photos are army property thus he was able to maintain copyright and sell them to LIFE magazine. -- Esemono (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our license tag states This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. For me, this reads as "as long as one is in duty, his works are pd." Whether he bought his own camera or not, doesn't matter (otherwise, all federal employees would start to use private cameras to circumvent this law) --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor's of the Plain Dealer thought Haeberle and not the army had copyright too:
“ First, the paper had to verify that Haeberle was who he said he was. That was confirmed when an Army prosecutor named Aubrey Daniel strongly suggested The Plain Dealer not publish Haeberle's photos. ... Daniel told us, 'You have no right to run those photos because [Haeberle] was using an Army camera," [reporter Joe Eszterhas recalls]. "And we told him he'd had his own camera, too."[1] ”
The question really is, whether Haeberle was on duty at that time or not. Which camera he used is irrelevant. But see also image description: Major newspapers seem to have assumed this to be in the public domain. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major newspapers used the image because they thought it was important to break the story and they didn't want to pay for his copyright. Where does it say anything about not paying because it was in the public domain? -- Esemono (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Major newspapers (New York Times [2], New York Post [3] and other newspapers [4]) published these photographs exactly because they thought that these pictures are in PD, and have never been sued. The pictures have been taken by an official Army photographer, on an official mission, even if created using a private camera... copyright claim is very dubious. See also [5] for discussion on copyright of works created by Government employees. Trycatch (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those sources say it was decided that Haeberle didn't have copyright, they say it's disputed. Does Wikicommons use images when their copyright is in dispute? Does it use images where it's not 100% for sure PD? Your St Petersburg source seems to say that the reason publishers didn't pay for Haeberle's copyright was because they wanted exclusive rights and after they were published by American papers they wouldn't be able to have exclusive rights anymore, so there wasn't any deal. The reason was about exclusive access not whether or not the images were PD. So what we have is Stern magazine (Paid $7000), LIFE ($20,000), The Plain Dealer, Sunday Times, European papers, along with the printers of the And babies poster recognized Haeberle's ownership while some papers in the interest of breaking the story didn't. Also, your New York Times article states that Haeberle with the help of The Plain Dealer newspaper, "agreed to copyright [the pictures] in his name." -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We certainly don't keep images where the copyright is disputed, but there's no dispute here. Major news organizations have used this photo without license and Haeberle has not objected. If the copyright claim had any validity, surely a lawyer would have taken the action on contingency and sued everyone who used it. Since Life had already put a value on first use, this would have been a tidy little lawsuit in the late sixties -- remember that at that time you could buy ten Volkswagens for $20,000. So, no lawsuit for thirty years, no dispute, no copyright claim. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you're missing that for Haeberle to sue would be seen as trying to profit off the blood of the victims of the massacre. As shown in the above sources at the time there was intense pressure to not profit on photos that document the My Lai massacre. Haeberle still owned the copyright but as he stated in the New York Article he wouldn't pursue copyright claims because he was just happy the story got there. The images are still in dispute as shown by the multitude of media who paid for the use of the photos as opposed to those who recognized the copyright but decided to print without paying in order to break the story. -- Esemono (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, can you see the hypocrisy there? It's okay for him to profit off the blood of the victims of the massacre in selling the photo in the first place, but not okay for him to profit off the blood of the victims of the massacre in a lawsuit. That's precious. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I don't know what Haeberle was thinking ... well I do, he wanted money off his copyrighted images. But once it was exposed that was what he was doing he backed off any lawsuits and accepted that while he maintained copyright to the images he wouldn't try to sue to avoid a backlash. -- Esemono (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd say what he was thinking was that he didn't want to press the copyright issue because if he did it would come out that he didn't actually have the copyright to the image, as it was taken while he was on duty and thus is PD. Which would make him look really bad for having taken any money for the image in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.10.135 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Photos by a combat photographer on a reporting mission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the theme is "off limmits" 33 years ago ???. Theres an blanket of silence for this and somme other things what US army have done and do!.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.199.14 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC+8)
  •  Keep Photo was taken while he was on duty, there's no dispute over copy right, it's PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.10.135 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the public interest to see war crimes committed by Americans troops just the same way as many photos are published ad nauseum of the Holocaust. What benefit does a magazine gain from a report 40 years ago compared to the benefit of human education on such massacres. It boils down to greed and inconsideration for the victims, their families would like them published as some kind of good so lessons can be learned for the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.225.9 (talk • contribs)
  • While that is an honourable intention and would probably allow an image to be hosted on Wikipedia, this is wikicommons a site for images that are in the public domain and are 100% copyright free. What this debate boils down to is I have shown that the copyright is in dispute as Haeberle owns the copyright and others feel that through their original research that the image should be preserved because it is historical NOT because it is in the public domain. I'm not trying to censure this image I'm just trying to clarify what is wikicommon's purpose. Is Wikicommons here to host images in the public domain or host images that have copyright status but are historical? -- Esemono (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash. Bollocks. "others feel that through their original research"?!? They've made some solid arguments that the copyright itself is questionable,　and for you to paint that as OR is disingenuous. Bad faith on your part, and I hope there's a way to close this soon per w:WP:SNOWBALL.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several images of Haeberle's that status depend on the ruling of this image.-- Esemono (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't rocket science man. Clearly PUBLIC DOMAIN. Who cares if he used a "private" camera. He was employed by the government and was collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers. He's got no personal claims to these photos. I suppose he was a freelance photo journalist at the same time? What a scumbag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.250.213 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted.. and even deleting this picture will not remove the fact from the history, the criminal records pf US ARMY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.3.199 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 July 2010‎ (UTC+8)

Kept. Lone desperate crusade. If we scrutinized and doubted every image to that degree, we could pretty much shut down the project. Wknight94 talk 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg&oldid=921400875"
  NODES
Idea 1
idea 1
Project 1
Verify 1