Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955

Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955

It seems the copyright for Ebony magazine was renewed. So unless this was published elsewhere without a copyright notice, it is still under a copyright. Whole discussion.

Yann (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, the underlying NARA source is here, part of the US Information Agency records, and they note the copyright is held by Ebony Magazine and is fully restricted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the linked copyright notice. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clindberg. Ebony Magazine still has a copyright. Glrx (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the National Archives has used the image on its article since 2015, and it's one of the best-known images of Parks. A photo of her and King at the time of the Montgomery Bus Boycott is essential to define that event, and since the National Archives vouches for its free use it should stay on English Wikipedia (i.e., please move a copy there from Commons, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have uploaded that image to Parks's page under Fair Use, which I think is justified for a few reasons (elaborated on in the upload). Again, I personally would like the picture to stay on Commons because of its historic and educational value, but don't have a strong policy argument. This way, however, even if it is deleted, I believe it will still remain on her page at least. Spookyaki (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spookyaki: I do think the en.WP fair use argument for this image fails because other, free, images of Rosa Parks are available. Glrx (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, however, the image is being used to "illustrate the subject in question," and there is no equivalent that "is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." To clarify my reasoning:
While there are other images of Parks, this one is unique. For one, it was taken in 1955, the year of her historic refusal to move and of the Montgomery bus boycott. It shows her as she was at the time (relatively young, only in her 40s). Other portraits of her show her in old age, and many narratives of Parks's life misrepresent her as having been elderly when she refused to move. Secondly, the photograph, with its inclusion of Dr. King, also shows her connection to the Civil rights movement better than other photographs that could be used in the article header. Its educational value is therefore irreplaceable.

Spookyaki (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: Her 1956 second booking photo is available and illustrates the subject. That photo is only one year later than the bus incident, and she is not "old". This photo is substantially better and more interesting because of King, but that does not seem like a suitable rationale. Fair use does not justify the need for the best picture. IF the use of the photo is justified under fair use, it may be that the argument fails if the whole picture is used. One could argue that King should be cropped out; he is not needed to illustrate Parks. Glrx (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this photo is also insufficient, if it's what you're referring to. The current photo transmits does the following:

1. It clearly illustrates the subject. The fingerprinting photo, because of its candid nature, is less clear.

2. It portrays Parks as (a) young and (b) energetic. This is a crucial point, crucial enough that Parks and most of her biographers regularly emphasize it in their coverage because of how commonly the point is misconstrued. When Parks refused to move, she was 42 years old. She was not physically tired. She was, as she says, "tired of giving in".

3. It ties her to an extant network of civil rights activists (which was what made the subsequent Montgomery bus boycott as effective as it was). This is another crucial point. There is a common misconception that Parks's act was a singular one, performed in a vacuum from broader antiracist struggles. This photo communicates her connection to those struggles in a way the fingerprinting photo does not. Because of this, I also think that King's inclusion is vital and adds to the educational value of the image.

Another disadvantage of the fingerprinting photo is that it could be misconstrued as being a photo of her original arrest, which she is best known for. When I was editing the photo's caption in the Wikipedia article, I initially made this exact mistake. However, it is not.

In other words, the fingerprinting photo is insufficient to replace the current portrait in terms of both its ability to illustrate the subject and its educational value. This portrait is therefore, I would argue, irreplaceable by any of the images available, at least on Commons, and possibly anywhere. Spookyaki (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are arguments that this image is a great picture. It is not an argument that it is the only picture that can be used to illustrate Rosa Parks ca 1955. I do not see this image satisfying all the elements required for fair use. Glrx (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made my argument. People are free to take it or leave it. However, I think that fingerprint photo is insufficient and its use would be misleading. Spookyaki (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All please note that the photo includes both Dr. King and Rosa Parks during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Historically this is not replaceable with the photos mentioned above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Actually, the National Archives states plainly that the images is under copyright of Ebony Magazine, and is fully restricted. They are using it under fair use themselves (or it's possible the magazine gave the U.S. government a license, given that the USIA had it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]