File talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
 | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|||
Contested deletion
edit
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --108.129.120.238 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Unfair bias toward a religion who openly mocks another. Islam calls all others "infidels" burns our flags,mocks other religions openly. The world deserves to see both sides, do not submit to the bulling of Islam. They deserve no special protection
This must be deleted. Hamedvahid (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why? Where's the copyvio? We already see both sides: this image provides one, and this one provides the other. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hamdvahid's edit above confirms that this was never a copyright issue, but rather a personal distaste for the images. "I don't like it" or religous feelings have nothing to do with copyright law, and there is no copyright issue here. In addition, Wikipedia has an important policy: it is not censored, and Wikipedia also includes images offensive to Christians, Jews or Hindus, and such images aren't removed either. Including the image falls copyright-wise in line with Wikipedia's normal interpretation of the fair use provisions of US copyright law, which is the relevant concern here. In particular, the inclusion is merited since the topic of the article is indeed these very images. In addition, previous discussion has decided that the images will not be removed, see Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. Consequently, I'm restoring the previous (September 7) version of the image description page. --Valentinian T / C 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Different Resolution?
edit
I have a higher resolution copy, that still is not high enough resolution to read the article, so it fits fair use. Would it be possible to update using this copy? In the higher resolution one I have, the attribution to the paper is visible. In the current context it is not. If we're using an image as fair use, the sources name should be visible in the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
