The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Per AntiCompositeNumber, this event occurred recently enough such that a free version could be created. No prejudice to restoration and/or revisiting this matter in a year if a free version has not been found/created -FASTILY 23:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2020 Ganja bombings.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Solavirum (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

do not meet conditions of fair use Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide alternative(s) or this deletion request isn't going to end positively. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#1. There is no requirement in the non-free content policy that a free replacement be provided, only that it be possible for a free replacement to be created. Were this discussion to take place in a year or two, when all damage has been cleaned up, the lack of an existing free alternative would play in favor of using this non-free file. However, it has not been a month since the event, so a free alternative could conceivably be created. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation -FASTILY 23:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HIMmler (father) 2008 by Jasper Joffe 130 x 95 cm oil on canvas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Francisscholl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) and WP:FREER. This painting is relevant to only one sentence from the article: His exhibition "Beauty Show" at the V22 Gallery in London (January–February 2008) caused controversy due to its featuring a pastel painting of Heinrich Himmler, which was bought by Charles Saatchi. The use of this image does not significantly increase reader understanding of that sentence, and its absence would accordingly not be detrimental to understanding. The sourced text alone is sufficient. The use of an image of Himmler gives undue weight to that single controversy, which further counts against contextual significance. Additionally, using an image of a different person in the infobox of an article runs afowl of MOS:LEADIMAGE, as no reader would expect a picture of Himmler to be representative of Jasper Joffe. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a question about fair use, which implicitly accepts that the image is subject to copyright. however, this article is about Jasper Joffe, an image is not the artist, but a copyrighted work created by the artist. I don't think we can justify using a copyrighted image in this way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia is in receipt of an email ticket:2020110310012673 from someone claiming to be the artist (I have no reason to disbelieve this but I haven't done an independent verification). In theory, when considering fair use, we don't consider the wishes of the copyright holder, but I think it may be relevant to consider that the copyright holder objects to this use. They also pointed out they are in the UK so we might have to sort out whether we can invoke US-based fair use to trump tougher UK fair use rules. I haven't run into the situation before so I don't know but it might be worth reviewing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement claims. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the US (specifically Florida), so we assume US law applies. I'm not aware of any precedent in the 11th Circuit on international copyright law conflicts, nor is there any at the Supreme Court. Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., out of the 2nd Circuit, is the closest we have. That case determined that for foreign works, the law of the country of origin applies when determining the copyright itself, but US law (where the alleged infringement happened) is used to determine if there is actually a copyright infringement. Since there is no dispute about copyright ownership, UK law is irrelevant. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no policy backed reason to delete -FASTILY 23:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniel Cantor Wultz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MerlinsMagic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is copyrighted and there is no reasonable fair use exemption. ImTheIP (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a fair use rationale and this is fair use of a dead person in an article about their murder. Aspects (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.