File talk:Cheicon.jpg

I'm sorry J.J. but do you know they were serious issues about this image copyrights ? Make a search on Google about Alberto Korda. Ericd 23:05 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Copyright

The guy was a lifelong communist, though, and only wanted to cut down on blatant commercialization of the image, telling reporters:

As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world.

So it's used with permission.

That does not follow. Wikipedia does not have policies of propagating the memory of Che, or of propagating social justice. There may be a fair use justification for using the image in some articles: Che Guevara (photo), for example. But this is not a by permission image. Incidentally, the case referenced establishes that the photographer has asserted copyright, but it does not establish that his assertion is legally founded; the case was settled before a court decision. Markalexander100 08:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have policies of propagating the memory of Che, or of propagating social justice.

But :

The article about Guevara propagate the memory of Che,

A Free Encyclopedia is a contribution to the cause of social justice throughout the world.

Ericd 17:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, no. Propagating implies promoting; an article which said "Che's a bastard" would not be propagating his memory. A Free Encyclopedia is a contribution to the cause of social justice throughout the world? Again, no. It could be for or against social justice. Wikipedia, as it happens, is neither. Markalexander100 00:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I think we qualify.

The Che article is obviously designed to let people know about Che-thus, we fulfil the "propagating his memory" requirement. Also, an encyclopaedia that's free for anyone to use and edit and has a NPOV policy is hardly a champion cause of social injustice.

Not the Korda image

This is a red and black impression of the Jim Fitzpatrick image, which was based on the Korda photograph (see discussion at Che_Guevara_(photo)). Fitzpatrick renounced copyright on his graphic and any derived works, as described on his website. Whether it's a derivative work of Korda's photo (and thus Fitzpatrick never had the copyright in the first place) is one for the lawyers (but I doubt it - the image is universal at this point, which was Fitzpatrick's intention as well as Korda's). In any event, it can be safely surmised that Korda wanted his image to be used in any fair, noncommercial discussion of Che. He didn't use the term "NPOV" but probably wouldn't disagree with it. ;)

the image is universal at this point I don't know what that means, but I don't think it has any legal significance. Mark ¹ 06:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means that the image is used by all and sundry, as the artist intended. I have a t-shirt from Cuba with a glow-in-the-dark representation of it. ;) This may or may not change the legal standing of our use of the art (in a US jurisdiction probably not, though there it would probably have been fair use anyway), but again, it's a moot point; this is Fitzpatrick's image and he's expressed the wish that it be freely reproduced. From the artist's site:

"It's an odd world." says the artist, "The Che Guevara poster became a worldwide phenomena and caused outrage everywhere it appeared. Because the various posters of Che I produced were based on a photograph by a then unknown Cuban photographer plus the fact that I had met him (see Biography section ), idolised him and of course wanted to make sure he was never forgotten I made all the Guevara images copyright free. That's how it spread everywhere so quickly.

toh 22:31, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

I read somewhere (I think in the French magazine Le Point) that Korda's widow was engaging a new lawsuit for this photo and this time asking for a lot of money....

Ericd 16:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is actually someone attempting a homage to the fitzpatrick picture because a.) this looks like it was done in photoshop by doing a threshold split of the korda image and b.) the original fitzpatrick is a red, white and black usually with the words Che Guevara at the top of it in white and black. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A threshold split of the Korda image? Yeah, that's what Fitzpatrick did, only without a computer. I've recreated the image myself (on a computer) in the past, and the only difference is that part of the star is obscured. Can you provide a link to a reproduction of Fitzpatrick's piece?

From image page

Che Guevara icon.

This is a photo portrait taken by the Cuban photographer Alberto Korda and printed with strong contrast. The star on Che's hat and his eyes have also been edited from the original version. Cuba didn't sign the Berne convention thus the copyright status is unclear.

Uncropped source photo: Image:Che.jpg.

Korda successfully claimed copyright in 2000 to prevent it being used in a Vodka ad. Korda was a lifelong communist, though, and only wanted to cut down on the commercialization of the image, telling reporters:

"As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world."

See http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/16/cheguevaraphoto.ap/.

noncommercial

--69.108.1.58 07:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)LOL--69.108.1.58 07:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) nonfreedelete

Context dependant

The copyright holder's statement above clearly shows that use is permitted in specific cases and context. Without commenting on if it is fair use for the Wikipedia article on Che, it most certainly is not for the article on beret and other non-Che articles it has been placed in. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reproducible???

I can't find a WP policy page on it, but I know some copyrighted images are used here on the basis of being unique and unable to be reproduced, such as historic photographs. It certainly seems that this would fall under that criterion. The photograph has its own Wikipedia article in addition to the articles about the photographer and subject, and the vast majority of the public* knows the image through its popular high-contrast representation.

* I say this from a U.S. perspective.

Doesn't appear to be Jim Fitzpatrick's work

I came across this via the Jim Fitzpatrick (artist) page. Ironically, this image, which is on the Fitzpatrick article and the photo article as Fitzpatrick's work, looks to me to instead be a high contrast version of the photo, not any of the images by Fitzpatrick. Look here and compare. As Fitzpatrick says of his versions:

"Because the various posters of Che I produced were based on a photograph by a then unknown Cuban photographer plus the fact that I had met him (see Biography section), idolised him and of course wanted to make sure he was never forgotten I made all the Guevara images copyright free."[1]

So, it seems to me that if we replace this photo with one of Fitzpatrick's copyright free paintings, the problem should be solved. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Fitzpatrick has the right to make it "copyright free" though, as his is a derivative work of Korda's original. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guevara's widow now owns the images, including those by Fitzpatrick, and the trustees of the Children's Hospital in Havana control the rights. I corresponded with him about this, and here is an excerpt about the copyright situation:

Right now I am in the process of handing over all the original artwork (I did about 12 versions between 1968 and 1972) to Che's widow, Aleida March, for the Che Guevara Lynch archive in Havana and -more importantly -I intend to hand over all rights, including copyrights, to the Trustees of the Children's Hospital in Havana, Cuba. Next few months should see this done with the help of the Cuban Ambassador in Dublin, Ireland.

All I ever ask in return for usage is that a donation is made to a children's hospital in whatever city the user chooses.

When all is sorted in 2008 this will change, as outlined above, and a contribution will be obligitary for ANY usage, including political usage.

So, not free, and it looks to me like, unless the trustees of Children's Hospital want to contact WikiMedia and declare otherwise, we can't use any of these. Any objections to me deleting them? We could include links to pages where readers can view them, such as Jim Fitzpatrick's site.- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, we can still use non-free images on the Wikipedia at long as the appropriate fair-use rationale is provided, and it is a justifiable provision. Using the image on the articles for Guevara, Fitzpatrick, or Korda, where the iconic photo itself is the subject, would be appropriate. But using in an article about, say, Communism or Cuba in general probably would not be, as free alternatives exist for those. What I do want to see removed is inappropriate usage of the image, such as this; Image:Dead Marxist.png Tarc (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the "dead Marxist" image. Tell me if there are similar ones that need to go and I'll be glad to cut them. I have not done much work in image deletions and licensing on WP before now. I've tried to follow the debates, but admit I'm not completely clear on what the current state of fair use policy is. (Or, perhaps I should say, the current consensus in a sometimes ugly debate about what the current policy is, should be, or will be ;-)) In the past on the web, I've tended to see many of the claims of "fair use" to actually be attempts to excuse plagiarism. So I'm coming from a somewhat biased place on it, and that has tended to influence my decision to stay out of it on WP. But it's been coming up more, so I need to deal with it. I'm also concerned for doing the right thing simply due to not wanting the artists in question to feel screwed-over. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]