Talk:Kim Jong-un

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

Change the photo to an actual photo of Kim Jong Un 

Harry3670 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: Sorry, but this has been heavily debated. The most recent RfC was this past November, which failed to achieve consensus to use a non-free image of him. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am curious to know whyy he doesn't have a non free image,that's seems strange... Prompri (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• We've debated many times about whether to use a non-free image of him. There's never been consensus to do so. The most recent discussion was the November RfC, which did not achieve consensus to use a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Per User_talk:Rolf_h_nelson#The_Kim_Jong-un_image, I'm asking here if there are any objections to the use of an image of an alleged warhead like [1] at North Korea and weapons of mass destruction; the image obviously meets fair-use criteria as these images have specifically been commented on by experts, for example [2]: 'And it is possible that the silver sphere is a simple atomic bomb. But it is not a hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear bomb," he said, explaining that a thermonuclear device probably would be a different shape because of its two stages.' I guess it's theoretically possible the alleged warhead will visit the U.S. someday and get its picture taken here and be added to the public domain, if a photographer had a really fast shutter rate and could upload the photo really quickly, but it's more likely no public domain photo will ever be available. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• You're asking in the wrong place. We wouldn't permit the use of such an image on this article, but this isn't North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Kim may not be the most prominent feature. I should maybe restore the image and let others decide its fate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can/should it be used as the lead image in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• No. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are direct, my friend. I'll give you that. Any reason? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anna, Hammersoft's short and to-the-point answer is correct. Non-free use images are normally only included in a single article that the image is directly relevent to, and for which there is a compelling non-free use rationale (see Meeting the minimal usage criterion). As the image is already included in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction it would not normally be allowed to be included in any other Wikipedia article, and furthermore there is no good non-free use rationale for including this or another similar photo in the Kim Jong-un article. BabelStone (talk)

Hi BabelStone. Very educational indeed. I've been here for years and am still trying to understand all the nuances of non-free images. I actually might have known that but forgot. Thank you kindly for the valuable info. I will remember it and cite it if such a case arises again. All the best, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• AF, please forgive my abrupt answer. I've often been accused of being more verbose than a writer being paid by the word. Rare is the occasion that I'm accused of having a short answer :) I'll revel, for a moment, in the glow of success. Ok done. :) BabelStone answered to the gist of it. Another related issue that sometimes comes up is people think that if Image X is in use in Article A, then it would make sense to use it in Article B since we already have the image here on the project. This sidesteps the issue of per article minimum and more abstractly that the project's product isn't image space or any other space but the main article space. If we use Image X on Article B we just doubled the use of the image. Now, if there were a solid reason to use it, then sure. But, to use it just because it's already in use somewhere else isn't permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Abrupt answer, forgiven, dear Hammersoft. Literary Minimalism. Artistic, not abrupt. (Anna-style Haiku)

Sidesteps! Yes, I was wondering about that. I was chatting in IRC about the guidelines and I said "loophole". Nobody gave a clear yes or no. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is covered under WP:NFCC#10c, in that every use of the item has to have a fair use rationale, justifying its use in each instance of use. Thus, if you use Image X on Article A and Article B, it has to have a rationale for both articles. Even beyond that; there are rare cases where Image X might be used multiple times on Article A, in which case it needs an independent fair use rationale for each use on Article A. A case example of this is Love Symbol Album, where File:Prince logo.svg is used twice, but there's only one rationale for usage on that article; that's a failure of WP:NFCC#10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah the old sneak-it-in-right-at-the-bottom trick. I must have read that page a zillion times and zoned out each time just before then. I promise to stop scanning and start reading more thoroughly! Thank you again, Hammersoft! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Since we're back on this topic, can we look at expanding the FAQ and linking to the RfCs? Also, would it be possible to have a link near the image?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that whole fair use discussion on an image of Kim Jong-Un needs to be reopened and the overly rigid policy reexamined, as I find it ridiculous that we can't justify the use of a single photo of Kim Jong-Un to display on the page about Kim Jong-Un Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that the resolution on the non-allowance of non-free for living persons extends from the Foundation, our policy reflects that. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jack Upland: - I added links on the FAQ to the two prior RfCs ~2 weeks ago [3]. A link proximate to the image on the article itself would, I think, be inappropriate. A comment, hidden in the code for the page only to be seen when editing it, might be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Mztourist: - You participated in the last RfC, and I presume are aware of its outcome. Given that RfC concluded ~3 months ago, it's extremely unlikely that the community's consensus has changed. Nothing has changed vis-a-vis Kim Jong-un, such as dying or being incarcerated for life, that would enable us to grant an exception to our fair use policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Hammersoft, consensus changes and it seems that everyone who comes to this page is struck by the idiocy of a policy that prevents us using even 1 image of a notorious world leader.Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I noted, the last RfC on the matter closed just 3 months ago. It's unlikely consensus has changed since then. Further, the number of people supporting a view that we should allow an exception to our fair use policy in this case would need to at least triple. That's highly unlikely to happen in any new RfC started in the foreseeable future. You are welcome to your view that the stance is idiotic. Nevertheless, it is clear your opinion does not represent the consensus. Not withstanding the above, if you feel so motivated to start a new RfC, nobody stands in your way. Instructions on how to proceed are located here. I dare say though you will be disappointed at the result. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that during those three months, a Wikimedia Commons administrator clarified the rules on obtaining an image through freedom of panorama provisions. Previously, it was argued that we could get an image from somewhere with liberal FoP provisions as long as it was on an embassy or other public building. It turns out that is not the case - see the discussion with the user Revent above. So we will need an image that is freely licensed from the start. We did not realize this during the first RfC, so a subsequent one is likely to be even less favorable to your stance. As absurd as it may sound, and as much as I also wish that we could get a high-quality image added, Wikipedia and copyright rules simply do not allow it at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that argument cuts the other way. It's far harder to get a free image than defenders of the status quo argued.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus at all. We only have a result, if one that is VERY unsatisfying for this article. A consensus, however, would mean that we found a common solution with which everyone is content. We don't have that at all. Quite the opposite is the case! In fact there are some people who keep using the same old arguments as ever. Those aruments, however, don't become more relevant just by repeating them over and over and over. How many times have some here claimed that someone just needs to go to North Korea to take an image of Kim Jong-un? Dozens of times, maybe hundreds. But it very obviously never happened - simply because it is not possible! The point is, North Korea is a fierce dictatorship where you cannot do things the same way as in other countries. In the USA you may have a good chance to take a selfie with President Obama when visiting the White House. Or even the Queen in Buckingham Palace. If you tried to approach Kim for photograph you would very likely end up being arrested by North Korean officials and sentenced to ever so many years in a labour camp. Trying to take a picture of Kim would, by all means, be considered a lot worse than trying to snatch some propaganda paper. Well, yes, he is a living person. But, "incarcerated for life", that's the truth - Kim HAS incarcerated himself in his own country! That changes everything. Therefore the fair use rationale makes a lot of sense. Let's use it!--Maxl (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional case, that's the thing. NFCC#1 is based on the possibility of a free image being available, not the difficulty. It's recognized that barring an external agency, to get a picture of Jong-un would require the cost of going to NK and the timing to get a photo while he was outside in public, but it remains possible; neither of these are impossible tasks. Counter that to the few times we do allow non-free: people that are in prison (where access is impossible for the average person) or on the run from the law, or someone that is a known recluse that would normally not allow themselves to be seen in public. If we weaken the case here just because of how important Jong-un is to world politics, it creates slippery slope for using non-free for any person simply because it's difficult to get a free image. NFCC#1 and the WMF is irrespective of difficulty as long as a reasonable possibility exists. (And no, it is a invalid argument that Jong-un "incarcerated" himself in NK. He doesn't travel much but he does. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just the old argument again... Of course it is an exceptional case - or we'd have an image already. And an argument is not invalid just because it doesn't support your own arguments. The point is not that he isn't traveling but that he is not allowing anyone to approach. That's the kind of incarceration I meant. And that would fit into what you said about a "known recluse". You say the NFCC is "based on the possibility of a free image being available". But in this case the "possibility" is so extremely diminuitive that it borders on non-existence. This is why this case is an exceptional one, and your denial does not change things one little bit. And if you don't like the fair use rationale being used for an image in this article you could at least look the other way. I understand that there is more than enough to do elsewhere on the Wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No it is not exceptional. There are lot of BLPs articles out there that lack free images of the person (see Category:Wikipedia requested images of people). There's only the emphasis here being that Jong-un is a world leader, but for an encyclopedia, we don't make a different between, say, an academic professor or an athlete and a world leader. And no, the chance of getting an image is not non-existant, given how many press images there are of him. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course it is exceptional. It's not "not exceptional" just because you say so. It's your private opinion to which you are entitled. Well, I didn't bring up the world leader thing. But since you did: If YOU don't wish to make a difference between an academic professor and a world leader that's up to you to decide - but why do you use a "Royal we" if you mean yourself? The case however, is exceptional not just BECAUSE he is a world leader but also, and more importantly, because he is so exceedingly inapproachable. As I said before, if you don't like the fair use rationale being used on an image of Kim just look the other way. You arent'r required to like it. But you can be expected to accept sense. --Maxl (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"exceedingly inapproachable" is not true. Yes, for, say, an American, it can be difficult to get into NK (but it's not impossible), but we do not consider that part of the difficulty, and given recent talks between SK and NK, that barrier is getting easier for SK citizens to enter. He's certainly around in public areas in his country, we've got plenty of press images. Now, no, we're likely not going to have a perfectly-framed portrait image of him, sitting and posing for the photo, that was taken by a user, but we also don't care about quality - we want free content over anything else. That's why this is so important here: the lack of an image of a world leader seems like the poster case to allow for non-free, but at the same time that would completely undermine the WMF's resolution and NFCC#1, and why this is a critical page to avoid falling back to non-free just because it's "hard" to get an image. It's not impossible nor improbable to get, nor requires a person to risk life and limb to get, it just requires working with the right editors that are in the right places to figure out how to do it. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Obtaining a picture of Kim in North Korea is so improbable as to be practically impossible. Kim only appears at tightly controlled events where the media image/message can be fully controlled, he doesn't press the flesh with the general population and certainly not with groups of foreigners. I visited NK some years ago and all of our movements were strictly monitored, I understand that major events which Kim would be likely to attend are even more controlled and largely closed to foreigners, so I don't see any realistic possibility of any non-North Korean obtaining a usable photo in the forseeable future. In these circumstances and given that attempts have been made unsuccessfully to obtain permission to use other images, this seems an obvious case where an image can be fairly used until a free use image becomes available, probably when he does a trip to Russia as that seems to be where most of the Kim Jong-Il photos come from. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But he still appears in public events, even if he's surrounded by security; for all purposes, he's as accessible as someone like President Obama to the average person (in that you will likely never be able to get close to him) No, we're not going to get a nice tight framed shot, but it still remains possible to get a photo of him at such events. NFCC#1 doesn't care if other attempts have been made and failed, just that the possibility exists, which still does. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Mztourist, I have not and will not accept the usage of non-free content until such time as a free image becomes available. The only time I permit non-free content is when it can not be created in a free form. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Maxl: Consensus does not mean everyone is content. From Wikipedia:Consensus; "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". The last RfC was closed by an uninvolved editor who noted we can not use a non-free image of Kim Jong-un. You are welcome to make a request to review the closing decision, but given the weight of arguments voice by many opposing inclusion of a non-free image it is exceedingly unlikely to be overturned. Also, while arguments that are repeated are not more valid due to repetition, they are not less valid either. If it is not possible to take a photograph of Kim Jong-un, then please explain this. Regardless of your opinions of North Korea, Kim Jong-un is not incarcerated. The proof of that is we have obtained free images of his father and grandfather. If we can obtain free images of both of them, we can get one of Kim Jong-un.
• To get to brass tacks here; you apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) adamantly oppose the closing decision of the last RfC. You apparently believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that those of us who disagree with the use of a non-free image here do not "accept sense" (quoting you). You are welcome to your opinion. You are also welcome to start a new RfC. As I noted to Mztourist, given that the last RfC closed just a few months ago, it's extremely unlikely that consensus has changed. Nevertheless, you are welcome to do so. I dare say that continuing the debate via this talk page will be unsuccessful. Nobody has apparently become convinced of the veracity of your position, nor have you become convinced of the veracity of the consensus opinion expressed at the last RfC. A thorough read of the archives of this talk page would be quite instructive. The most polite thing to do at this point is to agree to disagree, and follow the outcome of the last RfC unless a new one is initiated. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be of any use to try to make you see sense. You just CLAIM that it is possible to get an image of him, and whenever someone tells you that's not true and tells you why it is not true you repeat yourself like a cracked record. What I see here is that we have a few people who are extremely opposed to finding a sensible solution to this problem. And if I read the archives of this talk page I'll just see that you repeated the same thing over and over, not that repeating things again and again makes them more true. The problem is that you are sticking with your opinion claiming it's the only valid one and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong per se. As long as you refuse to see sense it's not much use continuing this discussion. The archives just prove that you have been sticking to your opinion and have claimed again and again that Kim Jong-un is approachable when he isn't. I've been involved with this discussion for a while, and I've heard your arguments for years and in several years you have not brought anything new. You keep making claims that Kim is approachable and you discard all arguments to the opposite. And when someone tells you to prove your arguments for a change, let's say, travel to North Korea and try to get an image, you say that's not what you need to do because you don't need to prove anything. I just wonder what really is behind your fierce opposition to adding a sensible image of Kim to this article. --Maxl (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is understanding that WP is a free content encyclopedia, built on the idea that we do not use non-free content if free content can be obtained otherwise within reason. The last part is where there is wiggle room, as the WMF and our policies recognize there are legit cases that we can't make free images of living persons: people that are known recluses that avoid public appearances, people on the run from the law, and people that are prison are core examples. Jong-un fits none of those. He has appeared in many public events in NK, and while of course he's well protected and separated from the common citizen there, that doesn't mean he's hidden from view. NK is not a closed country to everyone else outside it, so no one would be risking their life or violating the law to get into NK. Obviously, if you ran up to Jong-Un's face to grab a photo, that would get you in trouble real fast, but a photo taken from a distance that still has him image rather clear would be reasonable and without any possibility of breaking a law. We're treating the availability of a free image in the same manner that we expect information to be verifyable - it may take time, it may require travel, it may require money to access, but as long as there are no other special privileges needed to get there and no breaking of the law or risk to ones life, then we'd consider there to be a possible free photo that someone can take, and that we disallow the non-free to be used. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Maxl, what you describe as "sense" and what I describe as "sense" differ. That doesn't make me wrong and you right, or vice versa. We disagree. That's all. Presuming that I lack sense because I can not see your point of view is encroaching on a personal attack. I don't care that you insult me. I do think you should care that making insults towards other people does nothing to enhance your position; rather the opposite. I encourage you to find other means of sustaining the veracity of your opinions than descending to such depths. That is, unless your goal is not to convince other people to use a non-free image. As for repeating arguments; you accuse those who oppose you of doing this, yet do it yourself. For example, in the last RfC you've claimed Kim Jong-un is a special case. Yet here in this very discussion you are once again claiming its an exceptional case. This idea of it being an exceptional case was refuted in the RfC. Yet here, months later, you're still repeating it. So, we're criticized for doing this, but it's ok for you to do it? Since you are so confident there are only "a few people who are extremely opposed", why don't you start a new RfC? That's where your solution lies. You're not convincing me obviously, nor anyone else in this thread. We're not convincing you either. Continuing this debate will not change the status quo. Continued discussion seems rather pointless, no? So, start a new RfC! Directions are that way. I look forward to your well thought out argument as to why we should violate core principles and policy on this issue. Looking forward to the new RfC, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

MASEM North Korea is a "closed country", entry is very tightly controlled and the suggestion that you can just travel to NK and snap a usable picture of Kim at a public event is implausible. Hammersoft, Maxl wasn't making any personal attack on you, rather he was querying your rigid approach and refusal to contemplate any practical solution to this issue, but you're right this is not the place to discuss this further so we will have to open a new RFC. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course its tightly controlled, but that does not mean it is impossible, and it doesn't have to be someone from a Western country that takes the necessary photo. NFCC#1's free alternative is not based on everyone having the opportunity to take a free placement, but that anyone that is a member of the general public can take one. Just because no one in this discussion is likely in a possible to take this photo is inconsequential to NFCC. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

as I said above, so improbable as to be practically impossible, you and Hammersoft are being completely unrealistic in persisting in the view that a visitor to North Korea or a North Korean or North Korean resident will be able to take a usable photo.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm being completely unrealistic to expect a free photo of him to become available when he is probably one of the most photographed people in the world. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

all very tightly controlled, so not a single free-use image among them...Mztourist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Re "practical solution"; There's really no such thing in this case. There's no middle ground to be compromised to. We either allow a non-free image or we do not. There's nothing in the middle. If I'm guilty of refusing to contemplate using a non-free image, you're just as guilty of refusing to contemplate following our policy preventing the use of a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We have been following policy...for years...and so its time to see if that policy (or its interpretation and application) makes sense when after all this time no free use image has become available Mztourist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy and the WMF resolution are not based on how long that no free image has been unable to be located, simply on the possibility one can be generated, which still is a non-zero possibility for this case. (Otherwise, we'd have people going "Oh, X years have passed without an image of this person, let's use a non-free". This doesn't happen). It might be frustrating, but this is core to the nature of Wikipedia's free content mission. To give up simply because its "too hard" is not helpful and is a slippery slope to worsening non-free usage. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, if after a number of years a non-free use image is not available, then the policy (or its interpretation and application) needs to be revisited. We are talking 1 image of a world leader here hardly a "slippery slope to worsening non-free usage" Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As I've previously noted, nobody is convincing anybody of anything. We're just going around in circles. If you do not like the status quo, then I invite you to start a new RfC. While it is highly unlikely that consensus has changed given the last RfC closed just 3 months ago and that circumstances haven't changed, there is nothing stopping you from trying. There lies your only chance of getting what you want. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't propose to start a new RfC, rather a change to the policy and/or guidelines either to clarify a timeframe or sensible limits on "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible)" and "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia" or to provide a specific exception for world leaders.Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can't change policy, you'll have to ask the WMF to change their stance from m:Resolution:Licensing policy, which has " An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." And we can't make exceptions for world leaders because that's a slippery slope to any other notable individuals that we just don't happen to have pictures of. Remember, Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world, we are not required to have pictures of every person we have an article about. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Who says the policy can't be changed? You mention "reasonably expect" which just follows from the same wording I quoted. Once again with the slippery slope argument... Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Anything's possible I guess. If you want the Foundation to change their policy, your first step is to contact them. Seeking a change to our local NFCC policy on this issue would not be allowed, as the Foundation's policy is very clear and tells us that it can not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... local policies of any Wikimedia project". Best of luck, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses on requests for donated photos

After the RfC on using a non-free image three months ago, various people made attempts to contact copyright-holders and request an image be donated. Would they mind documenting their results for future reference?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This was before the RfC, but I'll post it here anyhow: I think I emailed http://www.korea-dpr.com/. Around 22 November 2015, I definitely sent an email to Intel Org Sec Mr. Mana Sapmak listed at http://www.korea-dpr.com/organization.html and I also sent one to Naenara. Reference. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• It's obviously pointless. I sent an E-Mail to the address previously listed on official KCTV channel on YouTube in early January, but they didn't respond to this time, so I think it isn't possible to get a free-licenced picture of Kim Jong-un from any of government or press sources. I've seen a photo on one of Russian travel forums with Kim sitting on a stadium on Arirang, but this is not a free-licenced picture (but I believe it's possible to get a permission to use it) and it's too small. Sorry for my English. Al-Douri (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here's something I posted in January. I contacted three different entities, one newswire, one academic, and one freelance, to try to obtain an image. Anything from AP Images would violate NFCC #2 as it would eliminate any commercial opportunities if they released an image under a free license, and the site indicates their images are for editorial (non-commercial) use only. The University of Oregon images, which are from a North Korean publisher, do not allow commercial use either. Jaka indicated initially he thought he knew where a photo of KJU would be in North Korea, but never got back to me on it despite me (and even an Indonesian-speaking admin) following up with him about it. And this was posted before the comment by Revent, so it looks like the only way that would have worked anyway is if Jaka or one of the photographers there, like Shane O'Hodhrain, Eric Talmadge, etc. actually took a picture of KJU directly and made that image freely licensed.

Here are the responses I received from each:

AP Images:

   This image will need to be purchased on our site and cannot be provided for free. Let me know the rights you are interested in and I can send over the steps on how to purchase.

University of Oregon:

   Thanks for contacting us. Apologies for the delayed response. The E-Asia Digital Library was a project of a UO faculty member who has since passed away. My understanding is that everything on the site is presumed to be in the public domain or under Fair Use. The Foreign Languages Publishing House appears to be a state run publisher - in North Korea, documents for state management, current news or information data are not protected by copyright unless you’re planning to use the content for commercial purposes. As for the images themselves, I have no idea. For better information, I would suggest contacting the publisher. I hope this helps!

Jaka Parker:

   Thanks for watch my videos on my channel , I hope you enjoyed it !

   Formerly I wanna say sorry my bad english, my english is very very poor. So I hope you will understand it ..hehe
   I already read the wikipedia link that you give to me, I agree witjh you, we must change the KJU's photo with the better one, I'll try find and taking picture the good one and then sent by email to you, I think I know where I can find it in Pyongyang.

Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

KCTV videos on YouTube

A lot of footage of Kim Jong-un is published on the official KCTV channel on YouTube. Is it possible to use it under YouTube licence? Same question about the AP archive. Al-Douri (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Both would be treated as non-free on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with Masem. Publishing of content on YouTube under their standard license does not constitute release of the work under a free license. While it is possible to publish content on YouTube under a free license, both of these resources are not published under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

I think the picture of Kim Jong Un should be changed to an actual picture of him rather than an artist's rendition. This picture would be a good choice http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/external?url=http://content6.video.news.com.au/g4NmplbDpm8fZ-WPYFuu8BX5kigd-Gfu/promo220143216&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc. --Teelo888 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No free license images of Kim Jong-un are known to exist at this time. The image you linked to is likely copyrighted, and would have to be used under terms of fair use here and abide by our WP:NFCC policy; that policy does not permit the use of a non-free image for a living person. Please see Talk:Kim Jong-un/FAQ. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exclusivity

I recently went back to the AP Images site where I found this image and noticed that if you login and click "Get price", it has a line at the top of a pop-up that says "Need exclusivity or personal use?" and lists a phone number. I'm wondering if "exclusivity" means that you can pay for the image to be freely licensed. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I might email the rep I talked to a few months ago (and wrote their comment in Jack's post above) and ask what they mean by it. I want to run it by this talk page first to see if anyone knows more or if that would be an acceptable way to get a Wikipedia image if they allow that.

It would fit both NFCC #1 if they freely license it (I'll ask for CC BY-SA 4.0) and NFCC #2 if they set a price that will be fair to them and compensate for whatever income would be lost by having it freely licensed. They might also make it "royalty free", although I'm not sure that would be considered freely licensed by Wikipedia's standards. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI "exclusivity" generally means you pay extra so that your competitors in some narrow domain can't use the image. It doesn't generally give you extra bonus rights with the image. I kind of get where you're coming from, that you could ask the salesman if there's precedent for the AP to make a really broad "exclusive" deal such that nobody else on the planet could license a photo, and point out that if so, their management might be talked into allowing the salesman to make a deal to freely license it for the same price, since arguably it's the same forgone revenue either way (although one might also argue that the AP loses more money in the freely-licensed situation if it provides a free substitute for other photos the AP owns.) Even so, though, I'm skeptical buying the image, rather than leaving the article with a drawing, would be an optimal use of money for anyone. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I noticed a page on Getty that briefly described it, but AP didn't and it was still unclear. I agree about the AP revenue coming from an exclusive license would be from one source anyway, so a free license shouldn't be an issue, although it might be too much of an unusual circumstance for them to custom license it. They do have some royalty free images, although the KJU one I asked for was primarily intended for editorial use only and required contacting the sales rep for commercial licensing. As for the price, you may well be correct, especially considering the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but if nothing else it would settle the free vs. non-free image debate once and for all if they at least offer a freely licensed image of him.

Also, an interesting coincidence: When I contacted the AP sales rep, I received an auto-reply saying that person was out of the office until Thursday and suggesting other people to contact about various specific inquiries. One of them was for VICE, who we have tried to reach out to in the past but didn't get a response likely because we were talking to generic VICE or HBO contacts. I can ask this person about getting a still frame from their Dennis Rodman documentary, which wouldn't affect the value of the documentary overall and would give us a real image of KJU. This might at least be a backup if the AP image can't be freely licensed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I received a generic reply from the AP contact about editorial (non-commercial) licensing, so I replied back and asked about commercial use and if any images of KJU from their library are eligible for commercial licensing. I also asked about using a still frame from the VICE documentary. It might be too soon to mention free licensing, so I'll just ask about commercial use for now to keep it simple and go from there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been exchanging emails with the AP contact and was told that the VICE contact was someone else, but I also emailed the generic VICE photo contact listed on their website (photoeditor@vice.com) and will post in Jack's section above once I get a response answering whether an image can be used on Wikipedia. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing: I just noticed in my spam box that the VICE email was rejected because their inbox is full. I'll try again next week. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

New FOP images found

I've found two FOP images of Kim:

• File:0921 - Nordkorea 2015 - Pjöngjang - Public Viewing am Bahnhofsplatz (22584958809).jpg
• File:0923 - Nordkorea 2015 - Pjöngjang - Public Viewing am Bahnhofsplatz (22584887139).jpg

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. The images work (cropping to include the screen so that its clear its an artifact of the LED video) to illustrate, but there's a question of whether the video source on the screen is a copyrighted work that FOP itself wouldn't cover, just as an ad poster on the side of a building isn't necessarily free. I don't know enough on the image source, and the nature of the broadcast to say its not possible, and the copyright laws there, just that I think we need to assure a few things. I would note that the first one, even if the video source was copyrighted, it would fall under de minimus and still be fine as a free image, just that it doesn't illustrate Jong-un well. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing with FOP is that we only need to care about what the law of the country the work was created in and the photo was taken in say. The relevant law may or may not set additional restrictions on either the nature of the original work (such as permanence of display, certain types of three-dimensional artwork only, etc.) or on the subsequent use of the photograph (e.g. no commercial use, no derivatives, etc.). Here, we are concerned with the North Korean copyright law only, because that is where both the KCTV broadcast seen in the picture was made and the photograph was taken. This is the entirety of what that law has to say on FOP: "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright holder in the following cases: [...] 8. when a copyrighted work in public places is copied;" Crucially, this means that there are no restrictions on the nature of the reproduced ("copied") work, except for that it has to be "in public places". Neither does the copyright law set any constrains on the subsequent use of the reproduction. This means that we can make any derivative we like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. The KCTV broadcast is copyright, and while we can readily presume they were gave permission to have it displayed in this public space, that doesn't cause the copyright of the work to disappear. That screen image is still copyrighted to KCTV. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Good finds. Unfortunate that the quality is so low, and probably too low really to use in the infobox. But, one thing this definitively shows it is possible to get a picture in North Korea and have it usable for our purposes. We just need a better one. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References

I think these photos are only acceptable under FOP because the image of KJU is so low quality. Despite what the NK law seems to say, I don't think a photo of a photo would be acceptable.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth bringing up this discussion where a Commons admin said in part, "freedom of panorama itself is somewhat irrelevant here, in that FOP generally applies to the inclusion of copyrighted material in a wider image. If you crop an image to which FOP applies to include only the copyrighted content, then the resulting work is a 'reproduction' of that content, and a FOP exemption no longer applies." It looks like that is still the case here, alas. The photoeditor@vice.com email still says the inbox is full, and I haven't got a reply from AP (which is already a longshot anyway), so I don't have too many ideas beyond that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The contradiction in the consensus clique is that they claim there are "millions" of photos of Kimbo, then shoot down every example given. In fact, it is very difficult to get a usable photo. Wikipedia doesn't demand a free photo in every instance, but here it does. Let's just accept the recent RfC and wait for Putin to give us a free photo. There is no point in continuing to discuss this.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If we can, and do, use photographs of paintings of his father and grandfather, I don't see why we can't use an image of KJU taken in a similar way. Jonathunder (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that there are paintings of Il-Sung and Jong-il everywhere in NK, but not for Jong-un. Also, BLPs are more stringent than articles of those who are deceased. But like Jack said, if we can't find an acceptable picture or use "de minimus" or some similar argument, then perhaps it's better to let it rest until we find one that is not a derivative of a copyright image - or at the very least, make a better "illustration". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The BLP is irrelevant. Take a careful look at the license on the Kim Jong il Portrait we are using. It's a free license which could be used whether the subject is alive or not. Jonathunder (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)