Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Photo

I guess I should finally make this section regarding the photos in the infobox. There are no free legitimate photos of Kim Jong Un that has been released for Wikipedia to use. What has been released are drawings, sketches, and the like. I'm not familiar with all of the policies and guidelines surrounding the use of sketches in place of no photo, but if we are going to use sketches/drawings, I think that the black and white sketch was vastly superior. Tutelary (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand if you have an artistic preference for the black and white illustration, but to me it makes Kim look like a fictional character and draws unnecessary attention to itself. I think it's more appropriate for a modern world leader to be represented by a more photo realistic image, even if it isn't as artistically beautiful. -P388388 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seriously doesn't look like him, is somewhat blurry in places, and the like. What's also iffy about it is that you're the one who uploaded it, so naturally, you'd be a bit biased towards it: No offense. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but there were three people besides me who commented positively about it in the discussion above. One said it was pretty good, one said it was amazing, and one said it was more realistic than the previous image but wanted to try improving it. The softening is to prevent it from looking too much like a photo (I don't think it would be appropriate to use an image that could be mistaken for an actual photograph). But I do admit I am biased. I won't comment any further here. -P388388 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the one P388388 uploaded to the black and white image. Jonathunder (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

They both have their strong points, but certainly I think for a BLP's infobox we ought to be going with the option that best approximates the look of a photo, which would be P388388's contribution. I can still upload the altered version if consensus is that the blurring is distracting, though perhaps P388388 has an earlier version of the original that has not been softened quite so much that would be better still (sharpening after-the-fact causes graininess and artifacts, no matter how nuanced the technique). Snow talk 13:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that either of the two sketches previously used are far better than the blurry photorealistic sketch. I do not see why an approximation of a photo, which will surely confuse many readers into thinking that it is a real photo, is better in principle than an artistic sketch. BabelStone (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as very likely that anyone is going to mistake the more recent illustration for a photo, though I understand P388388's concern (as the uploader) in softening the image to avoid that possibility. I just think that, for a BLP article, it's better to use an image that more approximates a photo, just for consistency with other articles of that type; generally speaking, the only biographical articles which utilize an illustration are for those of people who predate the photographic era. I'll upload a sharpened version of P388388's image a little later and see if it assuages anyone's issues. Snow talk 05:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing, guys, is that this could have very well been a most epic trolling attempt. Had this been done by the goon squad it would have gone into the historic section of the Surfers guide to the Internets. But it's not is it? For then so old members wouldn't be part of it, but a bunch of newer accounts. Someone should take not of this though. It's beyond ridiculous. It's actually funny! Intended or not! 213.100.108.117 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can do with the image currently displayed on the article. We can't hope for anything better as long as all better solutions are vetoed by those who wield rules but don't really contribute very much. --Maxl (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and check out the discussion about his wife. That's side-splitting too. Wikipedia has fallen, has fallen...to the protocol droids.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• All the insults you two are issuing are greatly enhancing your position. Keep it up, and I'm sure that Wikipedia will soon abandon the very basis on which it was founded and bend to your will. I'm surprised it hasn't done so already. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This page, including the FAQ, shows that the vast majority of users agree with us, not your clique. But though we mock you, we realise that you have control of the empire. We are helpless, bent double with laughter against our will.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The vast majority of editors, in an RfC, decided against including a non-free photo. I am not a member of any clique. I am not in control of any empire. I have no special rights on Wikipedia of any kind, and claim no more authority than anyone else on this project. I am sorry, but on all points you are quite in error. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article. If you want to mock policies that come from the Wikimedia Foundation principles, write a blog someplace else.

As far as improving the article, I look forward to your upload, Snow Rise. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Talk page guidelines still apply, and I recommend that everyone adhere to them. This page is for discussion specifically related to improving this article, and is not a forum for discussing Wikipedia's bureaucracy meta and policy meta. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I ever asked for free speech. I think the article could be improved by a photo of Kim Jong Un. There is no valid reason why this can't happen. The only logjam here is a few wikilawyers who got it wrong previously (which is understandable and not really their fault) and who vociferously refuse to admit it (which is less understandable and actually is their fault). Wikipedia policy does not trump common sense, and it's only a tiny minority of editors that argue that it does. But they happen to be the most active. That's what I mean by a clique.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is a valid reason why this can't happen. You disagree with that reason, but that does not make it invalid. You keep saying it's a tiny minority of editors, yet the RfC that concluded that we should not permit a non-free image on this article had a significant majority of editors agreeing that we should not. If that counts as a "clique" then I am proud to be part of it. I don't know from where you get your data, but the RfC disagrees with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We are Suppressive Persons it appears! While Jack argues using logic and common sense you seem to only be able to argue through the use of bureaucratic newspeak. It is the majority of the involved bureaucracy that has approved such steps, not the majority of casual editors, considering how many times and how often this issue is discussed by the casual editor, and as in my case, mocked. Not to mention that one of the earliest principles under which the Wikipedia was able to function before your type took it over was the principle of fair use which shielded it from suits. As mentioned, the damn Embassy has before said that this site is specifically authorized to use pictures from the official news agency. But this goes beyond the ridiculous issue at hand, the ridiculous Kim and your ridiculous bureaucracy. It goes to the core of the issue, whether or not indeed a small clique should have control over the worlds premier source of shallow information. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you wish to start a new RfC to overturn the consensus of the the extant RfC, be my guest. Afterall, consensus can change and it has been 2 1/2 years since the last RfC. To do so, please follow the instructions here. Barring a new RfC, the existing consensus is the prior RfC, which favored 3:1 the non-inclusion of a non-free content image. Discussion here, no matter how virulent, will not change the status quo of the prior RfC. If you do not wish to start a new RfC, then please stop complaining about the extant RfC. Complaining will change nothing. If you truly believe there to be an involved bureaucracy somehow controlling this article, and that as a result any RfC would be automatically corrupted and against using a non-free image, I recommend you make a complaint to WP:AN/I, where I'm sure an administrator will be happy to address your complaint. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to change the RFC or your other quasi-legislatioon. My wish would be to abolish most of it. Go by common sense, logic and using general principles as opposed to the rigidness of your regime. I do not have the energy nor the will, as most editors don't, to engage in your endless debates. Your majority vote represents what percentage of total of editors here, dare I guess less than 5%? If you need to have a rule for every corner then at least let them be democratic rules. Established not in shady discussion rooms that are in no way easily accessible but online polls where anyone with X or Y edits can vote months of membership and that are publicly advertised. Of course it would be corrupted, it deserves to be corrupted, it's obviously foolish. The sad thing is that all of this ignored, putting up a fucking image of the fat one would still fall within the provisions of your own stupendously complicated regulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria

Also please do not speak to me with your non-acknowledged acronyms. I understand English, although I'm no native speaker. I'm in no hurry to learn Wikipedian, neither is the majority of the casual public (which includes casual experts) and your constant use of them alienates us. I thought RfC aluded to some form of regulation, apparently you're talking about a huge discussion pertaining only this little page. My god...I better leave before this insanity becomes contagious. There's only need for a simple principle in the struggle to inform and attain free culture: 'We will use Free images if there are any, if thereare not we will use others from other sources. Any accusation of Copyright infringement will be taken into due, long and slow consideration and if it is shown to go against any laws will then be removed.' Unless you come up with a very witty reply I am done with you for now.213.100.108.117 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland, Maxl, if you look through the numerous past RfC's on this issue, you will find that I've long been an advocate that the circumstances of this case are consistent with the provisions for extremely rare exceptions to non-free status that policy allows for. I've argued these points at length with some of the people you two seem to be mocking above. But the divisiveness of that content matter is not central issue on this talk page at present; rather it's the disruptive behaviour of the two of you, making snarky, passive-aggresive and off-topic comments in thread after thread, which collectively amount to a kind of personal attack on the editors who disagree with you on a particular content issue. I've been noticing it since I returned here after about a year's absence, with increasing frequency and ubiquity in response to the comments of others. This thread wasn't even about the issue of the viability of a photo, it was about deciding which of the interim graphic options was best, but you both launched into it without hesitation with no other purpose than fire petty broadsides against others. That kind of behaviour is unnecessary, counterproductive, incompatible with our core behavioural guidelines, and frankly just childish. You are asked to please keep your comments on the topic of policy and off the topic of what you broadly think of your fellow editors, which is also a standard demanded by policy if you wish to contribute on this project. If you have a specific issue that you want to have a discussion on, that is another matter, but be sure you can have it while arguing on the point, not the perceived shortcomings or obstinacy you believe you see in the person arguing the opposing case; those are not relevant to how we decide content decisions here and leaning on those kind of personal attacks A) won't win your position much support, and B) will certainly eventually result in administrative action.

In brief: We don't want to hear your general opinions on the nature of Wikipedia community priorities or the perceived myopia of editors involved here in general; that is not what this space is for. If you want to discuss any specific content issue relevant to the topic of Kim Jong-un, in light of policy, raise that issue, make your case, and then try to respect consensus, even if you disagree with it. Knock all the rest out. If you don't like the fact that we have rules we take seriously as a matter of practical cohesion to the project, this is just not the place for you to contribute your time and efforts. Snow talk 09:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Snow Rise: What do you mean to tell me? That you consider disagreeing with you an attack? Voicing an opinion not consistent with yours being a petty attack? You wouldnt, would you? Anyway, the only thing I wrote here was that I am content with the image currently displayed on the article page and that I'm not happy with too much buerocracy. I believe I AM still allowed to state my opinion, am I not? And why do you take an opinion you do not share an attack (as stated above)? And as to the last paragraph of yor lengthy post - how come you write about yourself in plural? ;) While you may, of course, speak for yourself it may be wise to refrain from speaking for others. Anyway, you are of course allowed not to wish to read the opinions of people who disagree with you. However, I don't believe it can be helped. Unlike in the DPRK, you'll have to live with people who say what they think, at least as long as they do so in a civilized way. I think I DID write in a civilized way. Sorry if you think this post amounts to another attack. It is not meant as one - I simply had to make my point known. ;) --Maxl (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Except I actually agree with you and Jack on the content issue, but I still agreed more with those there who were trying to counsel you two that your tone in discussions was inappropriate and getting to be consistently disruptive. You personally were not the worst about personal attacks, but yes, a couple of times I do feel your comments crossed that line, but even aside from that, there was just a general flow of back-and-forth conversation between you and Jack generally disparaging the efforts and perspectives of others here and bemoaning the absurd burden of having to work with too many rules on Wikipedia (which is acceptable and even encouraged feedback in other spaces on the project, but not on the article talk page, which was noted for you two and the IP several times -- and yes, sorry, but that is a rule). Quickly these leap-frog snarky comments began to amount to trash-talking the good-faith efforts of others here. Observe: [1] ->[2] ->[3] ->[4] ->[5] ->[6] ->[7] ->[8] ->[9] ->[10] ->[11] ->[12], and so on...

If you don't see why these comments are disruptive and uncivil, I'm not sure what more I can say to elucidate the point for you. The space is "Talk: Kim Jong-un" not "Talk:Your general gripes about Wikipedia as examined through the lens of the perceived shortcomings of the people you are currently in a content dispute with". That approach is unhelpful, it's counterproductive and it's very much against policy. And I know that you two regard "policy" as a dirty word and evidence of a soulless, clueless, robotic, unthinking, reflexive, bureaucratic, wikilawyering, closed-off mind every time it is uttered, but the fact of the matter is that our guidelines are not arbitrary nor were they made by decree by the exact people you are arguing them with at present; they represent broad community consensus formed over the last near-decade-and-a-half, and they are the only way we can coordinate such a massive project and keep our priorities and the quality and verifiability of our content consistent. So if you can't learn to deal with them (or at least voice your opposition to them in the appropriate way), this just isn't the place for you. And if you do stay, you need to alter your approach to a collaborative one, rather than whinging when the "overbearing" rules don't favour your position on the rationale of a given situation.

If you object to those rules, there are places on the project reserved for you to argue against them and try to convince the community that a different approach is more logical and practical. But that space is not the talk page of a mainspace article. And if you ever do try to change policy, you're going to want to approach your fellow contributors in a more collegial fashion, because we're all used to hearing the word "Wikilawyer" from people who don't understand or just can't accept community consensus on the matter at hand, so if you jump directly to that, people are just going to tune you out. And if you keep up with the kind of sarcasm that defines virtually all of the comments in the above diffs, you'll probably end up blocked before you can accomplish more than to annoy a group of editors on a policy talk page. You may not care for this community's rules, but I still suggest you read WP:Civility -- not just because it will keep you from run-ins, but because if you internalize the principle of that policy, you'll find that every change you want to effect on the project gets so much easier and more likely to gain legs. In short, this is not about the editors here suppressing your position (which, in-so-far as the content issue is concerned, I and others here support); rather it is about how you are trying to go about promoting that position and how you fail to realize that sarcasm and antagonization are just setting your efforts back.

And note, my use of "we" was because several other editors have attempted to point these things out for you immediately above; I wasn't "speaking for" anyone else, just referencing explicit comments by others which I guess you didn't take note of. Snow talk 07:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that you still have not understood that you cannot expect only to meet people who share your opinion. As I already said, this is not the DPRK and therefore you also cannot expect people not to voice their opinions, whether you like them or not. You may also feel free to feel that opinions which do not back yours are disruptive. They are no more disruptive than your own opinions. They're just not the same. And, not sharing your opinion is neither uncivil nor uncollegial. It's simply what happens in normal life. I cannot help you if you think some posts are sarcastic. You may feel they are but that's your personal opinion, which you may, of course voice. But please do not expect to be mollycoddled - that's not the sense of a discussion. Anyhow, I think it's impolite to call comments you personally do not like "thrashy". They are not thrashy simply because they are not in accordance with your opinion. And I did NOT talk about the shortcomings of the people but about those of the rules. And you may perceive calling people "wikilawyers" and "rule-wielders" impolite, but some here have behaved that way, whether they - or you - may want to admit it or not. The truth may sometimes be painful. You claim that you just want to tell me and others who criticized the attitude of others about the rules to see sense, however, in one line you still threaten me with being blocked. Just for not sharing your opinion. Does that make sense? --Maxl (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No one threatened you with anything. I was just providing you forewarning that if you do ever decide to try to argue the actual wording of a policy in a space where that discussion is actually appropriate (a central discussion space or a policy talk page as opposed to an article talk page) that you had best steer clear of the attitudes and tactics that typify your approach in the previous threads. Because if you hypothetically did do so, you'd stand a good chance of getting yourself blocked (by a party that could not possibly be me). That's not a threat, that's advice... I don't even remotely expect everyone I meet on this project to share my perspectives on interpretation of policy, but you three were not engaged in a discussion of policy, but rather just being disruptive and insisting on your own idiosyncratic approach ahead of the broad community consensus that forms the basis of our collaboration on this project. Sorry, but competency is required and I don't think you have more than a tenuous grasp on Wikipedia process at present -- so if you really want to have a substantive effect on the course of a content discussion, you need to first try to learn some policy, how it is formulated (it is not arbitrary or capricious), and how it is applied, rather than just dismissing community consensus where it doesn't agree with your preferred approach. The methodology you applied in the discussions and diffs above simply won't get you very far. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Scanning a stamp

Strange question here: I believe I have a postage stamp with a photo of KJU on it. Would a scan of that stamp be considered fair use under wikipedia rules? Huseyx2 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could we use it under terms of fair use? Maybe. Could we use it on Wikipedia? No, unless it was an article about the stamp. See #3 under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a great question: not strange at all. Some postage stamps are public domain, but apparently not those of North Korea unless more than 50 years old. [13] Jonathunder (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this it?

Is this one a suitable image, I found it using filters on Google? - TheChampionMan1234 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTCo)

The licensing looks very dubious to me. I see no evidence that the original poster has traveled to North Korea. Also, the image is attached to a satirical Borowitz Report story about North Korea. I would like to see far better evidence. Nice try, though, and I mean that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, and I found this one, also using Google, I have nominated it for deletion, LOL - TheChampionMan1234 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The licensing is wrong. It's just flickr washing. See Commons:Commons:License laundering. Plenty of people take images they find on the Internet, upload them to Flickr, then re-upload them to Commons claiming the license is free on Flickr therefore it must be ok. The flickr bot dutifully checks the license of the image on flickr, says its true, and tada! We have a "free" image! <cough> Reality; this image is property of Getty Images. See this page and note the attribution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo Argument

This argument over the subtleties of wikipedia guidelines is utterly absurd. He is the dictator of a country that openly mocks the laws of the entire world and there are people here arguing that we can't post a picture of him because of copyright issues? Who is going to complain? Really? Is this a joke? This fetish for the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law is laughable with wikipedians. You need to take each issue on a case by case basis... and this case is one where you need to put away your rubber stamps and red tape and just put up a goddamn picture. You people are a joke, you really really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.141.131 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have specific gripes about the specific Wikipedia policies that ensure that the Wikipedia project remains libre (i.e. free as in freedom), go take it to the correct discussion board. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "supreme leader". Building consensus.

Please see discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-il#Capitalization of "supreme leader". Building consensus.

Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia inconsistency

the FAQ of the caitlyn jenner page created by Wikipedia Admin's states

"Q3: Vanity Fair has an image of Jenner as a woman; we're already using it in the article. Can't we move it to the infobox?[hide] Per WP:NFCC, copyrighted images may only be used when no free images are available or could easily be obtained; free images of Jenner exist from before her transition, and because she is a public figure it is likely new images will become available eventually (see Q1), so using a non-free image in the infobox would violate WP:NFCC. The magazine cover is, however, appropriate directly next to the text in this article where the cover itself is discussed."

the key part is 'copyrighted images may only be used when no free images are available or could easily be obtained' Obviously images of kim jong un are hard to obtain and not easily available so why wont the admins here let us use a real photo of him? Instead they are confusing the public as most uninformed people would assume this is a cartoon character from some james bond movie with the current sketch. If Wikipedia is allowing a copyrighted image of the vanity fair magazine cover of Caitlyn Jenner why wont they let us use one for Kim Jong UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk • contribs)

• There is no inconsistency. It is important to understand the critical difference in how that image is being used. The Vanity Fair cover of Caitlyn Jenner is the subject of significant, sourced discussion in the article. The image is not being used in the infobox, which would be for depiction purposes on that biography. We do not have an image of Kim Jong-un that is historically significant for which we would have significant, sourced discussion about the image. Therefore, a non-free image of him would be for depiction purposes only. If someone attempted to use the Vanity Fair cover as the infobox image for Caitlyn, it would be soundly rejected (as it has). The use of a non-free image here to depict Kim Jong-un has also been soundly rejected. While that RfC is three years old now, no subsequent RfC has been held to see if community opinion has changed. It is therefore the standing consensus. Anyone may start a new RfC to gauge consensus, as consensus can certainly change. However, given that nothing has changed in the three years since that RfC, either in Wikipedia policy regarding the use of non-free images for depiction, or in the status of Kim Jong-un as a national leader who is frequently photographed, it is highly unlikely that a new RfC would see a change in consensus. Nevertheless, you are welcome to try. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to re-enter this argument, but new RfC would probably be a good idea, as many of the arguments used then are out of date. Three years on, it has proved much harder to obtain an image than was envisaged by some editors when he first came to power.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Out of date? Umm, no. The Foundation's policy on the matter has not changed. The local EDP on the matter has not changed. Kim Jong-un's status as 'living' hasn't changed, therefore the death exemption doesn't apply. He hasn't become incarcerated for life, therefore the prison exemption doesn't apply. He still remains one of the most photographed people on the planet. The arguments against using a non-free image never attempted to make a case that we should wait and see how hard it is. It is still speculation that a free image of him will never be obtained. Getty gets images of him. AP gets images of him. Reuters gets images of him. It isn't impossible. So, no, the arguments are not dated. They are still perfectly valid and undermine any case in favor of using a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• I will suggest, taking the Jenner Vanity cover as a cue, if there is an existing press image of Kim-Jong Un that the itself is the discussion of critical commentary as there is for the Jenner cover, we could use that. I'm not immediately aware of any such images (there's lot of media images, obviously, but none with the same level of crticial commentary discussion as the Jenner cover), but this is a possible argument to have. Otherwise, yes, we'll have to wait for a free photo for a living, non-recluse person. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it would be an appropriate time to consider fair-use in a context similar to the Caitlyn Jenner article. That is, the image itself as the object of discussion. I can come up with at least one such use: the images of Kim Jong-un as he returned from his absence with a walking stick. Consider the following quotations from news stories: CNN: "He was smiling and didn't appear, in the photos at least, to be in pain" and "After studying the photos, [Kim So-Yeon] said Kim [Jong-un]'s face appeared to have been swollen due to painkillers". BBC: "The photographs are still pictures so it's impossible to know how easily Kim Jong-un is walking". AFP: "The North's propaganda machine has always pushed an image of Kim Jong-Un as young and dynamic, but [John] Delury said it would have little problem spinning the walking stick. 'Assuming this is what it looks like -- not a life-threatening or debilitating condition -- they'll probably push the line that he hurt himself working for the country and the people,' he said.". It is clear that the images themselves are the object of discussion in news items, and we can only faithfully cite the claims of those stories if we display the image. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's a stretch. It's not the photos that are subjects of discussion, like Caitlyn. It's his condition, which can be described in text, as you've done above. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Have to agree w/ Hammersoft that calling those images as being the subject of discussion is a stretch, because we can state "photos of Kim-Jong Un appeared to show a swollen face, the effect of taking painkillers"; you don't need the image to understand that. Jenner's Vanity cover is criticially discussed, praising the composition of the photo itself, not just reporting what is in it. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I think this idea would give undue weight to the storm of media speculation about Kim's illness last year.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The very nature of WP:WEIGHT is that it is determined by the balance of our sources, not by what we, as the involved editors, subjectively judge to be germane. In any event, I tend to agree with you that we are probably well overdue to revisit this issue via a broad RfC. In response to Hammersoft's objection to that proposal, the relevant policies may not have changed significantly, but that doesn't mean that consensus here as to how those policies apply in this case can't, or shouldn't. There was significant support in the last RfC for invoking the provisions for extraordinary circumstances in which a free-use image is unlikely to become available and frankly I'm surprised the issue has remained quiet as long as it has. The fact that yet more years have passed without such an image becoming available (despite concerted efforts by dedicated editors contacting numerous organizations that represented our best chances for such) does tend to support the notion that no such image will be forthcoming, an argument which was already regarded as fairly certain by, if I recall correctly, a majority of editors participating in the last RfC. Hammer and Masem's ardent and longstanding positions in opposition to this assessment are a matter of extensive record (and I've defended their positions as good faith in the face of accusations from less experienced editors on more than one occasion) but I suspect, in light of our continued difficulties in securing even the merest hint of a free image, a new RfC could reflect overwhelming consensus that may be so one-sided that even they may feel be compelled to accept it. Anyway, there is no harm in discussing; three years is a long time to go without re-examining the arguments and the circumstances. We are, afterall, talking about the article for a head of state and major figure in regional and global politics. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

References

New take

This rendition appears to be freely licensed and I suspect Democracy Chronicles is the original source, EXIF doesn't contain a copyright notice. If this is indeed so, I can make a colored version of this. Brandmeister^talk 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Derivative work of the image found on [14]. Image is owned by KCNA. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Was about to comment that I doubt that the original photo that the image was derived from was taken by Democrary Chronicles. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Image

Is there a reason why this article uses a painting instead of an actual photograph? If I remember correctly, this page used to use one. Is there a new rule that makes Kim Jong-un equal to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?

Any of these should be fine, right?

http://binged.it/1PEPmGW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.161.161 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions box above. For biographies of living people we almost exclusively need images with a free license. As extensive search has yielded no such image, I doubt that the ones linked by you bring anything new to our knowledge. The issue on the article on Muhammad is quite different. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even noticed that was there. I skipped it thinking that it was all about when it was featured. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.161.161 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a free license picture of Kim Jong Un

A video was released by VICE News where they recorded Kim Jong Un themselves (and not by North Korea's agency), which gives us many usable pictures for this article. Since we can contact VICE News, why exactly would it take to be able to use one of those pictures for this article? --Diventox (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for how to contact other parts for release of media for free licensing can be found at WP:CONSENT. Basically, they would have to provide the image and then mail OTRS to say they are putting into a free license. -MASEM (t) 21:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Kim_Jong-un/Archive_4#Can_Vice_News_release_a_frame_of_their_footage_under_a_free_license.3F. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The current image

• 
  A (currently used)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• D
  D

Is it time to swap in another one of the images we have at commons?

The person who quickly sketched A on request could maybe be persuaded to make another one. I've posted at WikiProject Visual arts to request a new image from the community.

By the way, I've compared B, C, and D to search engine images to see if any are photo derivatives (copyvios), and found nothing. If you find anything, please say.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• D goes to an artist who created the work in his garden in, I believe, France. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We have already had B and C.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Boy, we really need an in-house sketch artist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, there's a new-fangled invention called a camera obscura. Not sure if it's legal, though.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's legal but sometimes punishable. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it still looks better than Donald Trump's picture.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(Anna put out an open call on IRC for opinions here, so here I am to offer my 2c) I strongly prefer either A or B to C or D. If I had to choose between A and B, I'd go B, which is a bit more detailed (or something? insert arty words here). C (both original and modified) is very much in the uncanny valley for me, and D appears to be sort of a pop-art take on something that we should be representing more seriously. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about C.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer A, with B as a second choice. I don't think we should use one that looks like the face was airbrushed over, and D is perhaps the most realistic, but a mural might not be appropriate as noted above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Fluffernutter and Tony that A is best for the purpose. Jonathunder (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A modified version

• 
  Original
• 
  Modified

Original or modified?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Original - the modified image looks awful. Samuel Tarling (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

But the eyes are so piercing and intense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel somewhat violated. Samuel Tarling (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What about symmetry. We could make the left and right side the same with photoshop. Is that the issue? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

But why???--Jack Upland (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I just thought the eyes being so asymmetrical made the current pic odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You've obviously looked more deeply into his eyes than I have.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am against the idea of a manga drawing of the DPRK person as the article's photograph. As much as I would like a photograph of the person, it opens doors that I want to keep closed. Please see the recording of the Lightning Talks discussion at the WikiConference USA 2015 were I give a suggestion. I suggest a no photo freely available note – for now. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Darn right! I agree. The current choices are not satisfactory. So, I've posted here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate to add image of impersonator?

Given the paucity of freely-licensed photographs of Kim Jong-un, would it be appropriate to include a photo of an impersonator, Minyong Kim? Apart from the obvious physical likeness, he is also wearing the typical outfit Kim Jong-un wears, so I think adding the picture might have encyclopedic value - it gives a realistic portrayal of what the subject of the article looks like. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Umm, no. Using an impersonator to depict someone else would not be acceptable regardless of the circumstances. No, I can not cite a specific policy to support that. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure Squad(s)

I question whether the story that Kim is "reportedly" recruiting for a "pleasure squad" warrants its own section. This is only a rumour.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

For such extraordinary BLP claims, we should have better quality sources (now we only have Fox News). The matter also makes little sense out of context (ie. similar and better documented allegations against Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Having just read this article now for the first time, I agree. The section stands out - as something to delete.Nickm57 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented here seems to support removing the section, so I have done so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the right move. I certainly wouldn't use FOX news as my touchstone for international reporting, but it undoubtedly meets WP:RS standards, and I have little doubt the story has been repeated elsewhere in respectable press. I'm dubious myself (I can easily see this being true, but can also easily see it being dissident propaganda), but even for BLPs, the standard is WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. If someone else can supply a single other reliable source, I don't see as we have much choice but to include this information. All of that said, I believe Jack's original point (that it doesn't qualify for its own section in any event) is valid as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, Fox News is not backing the story: the headline uses the word "reportedly". It's clearly true there have been reports of a "pleasure squad". Equally, there were reports that he was addicted to Swiss cheese, etc. This is not a repository of rumours. In any case, merely because something is reported by reliable sources does not mean that it has to be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We do have some editorial discretion in that regard, but as a general rule, if something can be sourced at WP:RS standards, it can be included by any editor who feels it is warranted and the burden of proof falls upon other editors who doubt the claim to balance it with sources of their own. Generally this works decently well in that claims that are obviously patently false will be attacked by other reliable sources. However, I do recognize that in the case of this particular topic, the issue is muddied by the insular nature of the DPRK; this of course, is a recurring theme here. So I'm not personally pressing for the inclusion of this fact. But if there were an RfC on the matter and additional sources presented, I'd have a hard time justifying not !voting for inclusion, as policy arguably demands. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is WP:BLPGOSSIP.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Youngest Head of State?

At the risk of being pedantic, is he "head of state"? Kim Yong Nam is described in his article as the "nominal head of state", while Kim Il Sung is officially the "Eternal President".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Head of state, it seems that he is both head of state and head of government. I believe Yong-nam and Pak Pong-ju are also heads of government, but Kim Jong-un is the head of state. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? Kim Yong Nam's article states: "Kim Yong-nam accepts the credentials of ambassadors, signs treaties, receives visiting heads of state and represents North Korea on all state visits — the functions normally performed by a head of state in other countries." Jong Un is not president. What makes him the head of state?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the phrase "normally performed by a head of state in other countries" implies that Yong-nam is not the head of state, but just performs many of the duties of one. I believe Jong-un is head of state (see note below) since he is the one that just about everyone thinks of when they think of the leader of North Korea. He might not be "president" per se, but he is the equivalent of the leadership in the Soviet Union (compare Jong-un's title with Khrushchev's). Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: This is discussed to some detail in the article List of leaders of North Korea. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I asked someone else off-wiki, and they also said Kim Yong-nam is head of state. So Jack (and the article) is right. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Being also currently involved in a long debate about Australia's head of state, I'm becoming unconvinced of the usefulness of the term "head of state".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Korean atheists category

Is there a reliable source that Kim Jong-un is an atheist? If not he shouldn't be in the category. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Very unlikely. Kenji Fujimoto does not state this in his first two books, and he is the only third-party source that exists for private Kim family life. In addition, North Korean media has never denied his faith, even if they have rarely mentioned the fact that his great-grandparents were Christians. I removed the category. Ceosad (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this Talk Page have the most bizarre discussions in Wikipedia?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond Jimmy Wales' user talk and the Teahouse? I guess I am not the only one wondering about that... Ceosad (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Image from the source

Has anyone written to North Korea? I don't see it mentioned above. If not, I will. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange website. I don't quite get who these people are. I really want to get through to some administrator in Kim Jong-un's circle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the Korean Friendship Association. But Geraldshields11 has contacted North Korean diplomats. See:[15].--Jack Upland (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. Okay. Well, I wrote again anyway. I sent an email to Intel Org Sec Mr. Mana Sapmak listed at http://www.korea-dpr.com/organization.html and I also sent it to Naenara. I told them "...Our current image of your great leader is not an actual photograph. In fact, I am not certain that Kim Jong-un would like it at all..." Fingers crossed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out repeatedly that not all potential western owners of the photo have been contacted. There was an earlier attempt to ask HBO and Vice News about the photo/footage (see: [16]), but media companies that had been in North Korean military parades have not been contacted yet. They almost certainly have an original photo or footage of Kim Jong Un. Vice News is worth of an another attempt, as no answer was received. The North Koreans did answer, but probably did not understand the request or licensing. Ceosad (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Hammersoft needs to give them a tutorial about their copyright system.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have a possible solution in the meantime: there is an elegant way to link external images from an infobox. See my sandbox for a testcase. This is exactly the kind of case prescribed by Template:External media ("[the media] is currently available online, cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under fair-use rules, and readers will expect this type of media in the article"). No contradiction with Wikipedia:External links come to mind either. De Standaard, if you are wondering, was the site with this latest official portrait in high resolution that I could find with a quick search that attributes the photo to AFP, whom I think we can take for a news agency who don't infringe on others' copyright (the photo is without a question of North Korean origin, but AFP probably has a license to it). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is a somewhat recent Reuters photo that has been credited to Damir Sagolj, so it might be a real one instead of a KCNA ripoff. Ceosad (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Damir Šagolj has a photoshelter site where he says: "Copyright to all the pictures here belong to Reuters. If you want to use any of them please contact Reuters office in your country or send me an e-mail. Thanks." Maybe it's worth asking him if he has something he's willing to donate. Jonathunder (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody wish to do this, or should I just go ahead and send him an email? I am not really that familiar on how to proceed with potential material donations, and neither am I well-versed in the copyright laws beyond pointing him at the right license. I believe this is worth the effort. Any suggestions? Ceosad (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission contains instructions for how to request materials under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hammersoft, I was looking for that page. I will email him today or tomorrow. Ceosad (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have sent him the request. Ceosad (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually tend to think that does conflict rather directly with our policies against linking to external content in the body of an article, but I would still support this approach as a reasonable middle-ground solution for the same "exceptional circumstances" principles I've shared above to explain my support for an internal non-free image. By the way, I apologize for not attending to responding to counterarguments to those positions above in a more expedient fashion; my time has been very much strained the last week and what little I've been able to spare for the project has been consumed by some other high-volume discussions. Maybe this notion of Finn's will gain some traction and I'll be spared the trouble, but otherwise I will be clarifying my positions shortly to address the further discussion that has taken place. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

An external link as long as it's to a credible news site is fine, it's not violating any policies otherwise. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?

So, are we all mostly on board for Finnusertop's external media template notion as a reasonable middle-ground/stop-gap solution until such time as we can secure a free image? Further, would anyone supporting this approach like to suggest a file? It strikes me that any option would need to satisfy not only our usual content priorities with regard to being a reasonably typical image of the subject, but would also have to be from amongst those choices least likely to be owned/hosted by anyone that would be unhappy with the link. And preferably on a server which already gets so much traffic that any redirects to the image will be thoroughly insignificant to the volume of their bandwidth. Thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 09:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if we haven't already, someone should ask Reuters for permission. That way, we can justify the "exceptional circumstances" argument better if we have at least made an effort to have it officially approved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the bandwidth, it would be unwise to link to a photo that exists on KCNA server. They have horrible bandwidth, they remove content periodically, and their websites suffer from an occasional downtime. Also, it would be nice to have a photo that is not a KCNA ripoff. Ceosad (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point. As pointed out before, any user can google a plethora of photos. Why pick one off-site image?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Because official portraits and/or easy one-click access? There would honestly be almost no sense linking anything else than an official portrait or a photo taken for the similar purpose. Unless we really want to decide which propaganda or field guidance activity is the most representing of Kim Jong-un's character and role. If people want to see Kim Jong-un at a turtle farm or lubricant factory, or smiling with mushrooms, they can use Google. We can at least try to achieve something with the link rather than be lazy and just choose some random military parade photo. Ceosad (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image of Kim Jong un

Really? We can't use a picture of him? Are we really concerned about North Korea's copyrights? Really? That's absolutely pathetic. Someone remove that ugly sketch and add a real image already. Incendiary Iconoclasm 22:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we really are concerned about the rights of North Korea, and your country, and all countries. That's a good thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To add, while I believe NK is on the list of countries that the US does not have reciprocal copyright agreements with, meaning that a US citizen has no requirement to respect NK's copyrights, Jimmy Wales has asked us to maintain that respect for such countries' copyrights and treat their works as non-free if they are otherwise copyrighted in the origin country. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Incendiary Iconoclasm:, I believe you can still contribute the RfC. While it has run for a month, it hasn't been formally closed, and I think it should be extended, as the issue has been debated for a long time, and continues to attract attention. There are currently 5 responses in favour of a non-free image, and 8 against, which is a lot less overwhelming than the RfC 5 years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, the RfC isn't a vote. Further, asking him to contribute when he is obviously in favor of your position is a bit too close to WP:CANVAS for my tastes. There are several people whom I could call in to the RfC that would likely oppose the use of a non-free image. If, post being pinged back to this page, he comments in favor of a non-free image, the RfC becomes tainted. Lastly, even if it were a vote, you're still a LONG way away. 51-49% would never cut it, for example. This RfC is done. It started 5.5 weeks ago, and there's been no activity on it for two weeks. Like the last one, it shows there is no consensus for the use of a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't ask Incendiary Iconoclasm to come to the page. The comment has already been made. I thought it would be better for editors to contribute to the decision-making process rather than to complain about it, and to have one big debate rather than a series of mini-debates. The issue certainly hasn't died down. You yourself were raising debating points related to the RfC on 17 December. I don't think this was a "pure" textbook example of a RfC. Most editors responded to the RfC on 17 November (which seems co-ordinated). Rather than being the "outside input" of "uninvolved editors", most editors had already been involved in the issue, and many had been involved in the RfC 3 years ago. I don't see how you can determine a consensus without counting numbers. If you ignore the numbers, all the "No" side has provided is walls of text riddled with logical contradictions. I don't see the "merit" in that. In the previous RfC there was a consensus: against a non-free image, at least at that time. Now, there is no consensus. I think there should at least be an opportunity to revisit the issue if the current attempts to obtain a free image are unsuccessful. I didn't start the RfC to push my position: I started it to try to provide a resolution for an issue that has dominated this talk page for years. Unfortunately, unless a free image turns up, it appears we will be have the same discussions indefinitely.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have a free image which is now in the article. We actually have at least two free images. It is just that you do not like this free image or the other because they are artist sketches, and you prefer a photograph. Well, I would like a photo too but we have no photos of George Washington, for example, and illustrate his biography just fine with free images of paintings. So, one option is to recruit a photorealistic painter to create a composite better free image of him, based on many photos, not just one. Also worth remembering is that we have free photos of his father and his grandfather, taken by official photographers in the USSR or Russia. If he visits Russia, we will have freely licensed photos. Do we have any evidence that he has decided to never visit Russia? I do not think so. So, we have two policy compliant options, non photographic free images and waiting for a copyright free or freely licensed photo. Let's stick to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Jack, you appear to be under the misapprehension that this RfC is somehow (a) a vote, (b) invalid, and (c) rigged. Further, you appear to be under the misapprehension that things have changed. I assure you none of the above is true. There was no consensus to include a non-free image some years ago, there's no consensus to include a non-free image now. This RfC was properly placed, properly bot identified, and properly advertised. Anyone that had a care about the issue could show up and place their opinions. The large bulk of the opinions are against the inclusion of a non-free image. This is unlikely to change, even if current attempts to find a free image fail. WP:NFCC #1 is very clear about this when it says "or could be created". This is quite unequivocal. I understand you disagree with it. You have been and remain welcome to voice your opinion, even if such opinions are in the minority. But, attacking the validity of the RfC, attacking those who supported it as being coordinated in their efforts to oppose, and further attacking those who voiced opinions as having logical contradictions is not the way forward. Let's be clear here; there is a very clear resolution to this issue. A non-free image is not acceptable on this article. That's the resolution. It's been upheld for years now, across two RfCs, and multiple debates on the issue outside of RfCs. That some people disagree with that resolution does not mean it remains unresolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• According to today's (12/22) NYTimes, Kim Jong-un appeared on Chinese state television during a report on a PRC official's visit to North Korea. (The article isn't perfectly clear; it might have been North Korean state TV, but the context is a discussion of PRC actions.) Perhaps they'd be willing to release a photo/screenshot. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the positive thing to come out of this is that I now know who George Washington is.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess that I should add those people to the list of copyright owners I will contact to ask for a free image, as my humble efforts to obtain an image with a correct licensing will continue in the January. (The news are non-copyrightable under Chinese copyright laws, as far as I know, but I guess the photos themselves are not, unlike in the Russia for certain cases.) Ceosad (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Preferred copyright image

I didn't see this anywhere else, so I'd like to know which image you all would prefer assuming we could get permission to use any image. I'm thinking that the following one of Kim Jong-un waving would be good since it is high quality and shows his entire face. I sent an inquiry into the AP Images contact form for it.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/2013/01/kim-jong-un-hands-up_1.jpg

If needed, this might be a good alternative as it is cropped square (although I'm not sure the copyright holder): http://a3.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,g_face,h_300,q_80,w_300/MTIwNjA4NjM0MjAzODMzODY4.jpg Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's conjecture really. I think we'd be happy with any picture available under a free license right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate your efforts! I am a bit late now, but I guess any image is good at this point, as Hammersoft said. Ceosad (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

AP Images paid image

I'm wondering if it's okay to pay for a license for an image to use on Wikipedia. Specifically, there is an image of Kim Jong-un that would be a good fit for an infobox image. I looked at the prices for it and the longest duration I can do is two years, and I set the unique pageviews per month at 250K (100K wasn't much cheaper). However, one thing that did raise the price significantly is whether I specified "web only" or "web and app". Web only costs just $95 for two years, whereas web and app costs $265 for two years. Technically, one could view the image on the Wikipedia app, although I'm not sure that's what they had in mind when they say app. If you register and click "Get price", you can try it for yourself - choose Editorial and publishing, internet, and web at the prompts.

If someone could advise on if licensing an image for a set duration is permissible, and if so whether the app part is needed, I'd appreciate it. I wouldn't mind pitching in to have this article get a good image at the top. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tonystewart14. For a biography of a living person, we need a freely licensed image, which allows anyone to reuse the image anywhere, at any time, for any purpose including commercial reuse, without asking for permission or making a payment, with attribution being the only restriction. The AP license is far more restrictive than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Cullen. In that case, that would take anything by David Guttenfelder off the table, as well as any other newswire sources like Reuters unless they can make some kind of exception, which is unlikely. I think it would be wise to continue working on obtaining a freely-licensed image nonetheless. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious if anything on eBay would be freely licensed. I see there's a book that has a good image of him on the cover, although it's probably copyrighted by the KCNA. It might be worth digging some on there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are all pathetic. For god's sake, quit your bullshit. Just upload and add an image already. KCNA my ass. Incendiary Iconoclasm 14:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Incendiary Iconoclasm: - That's out of line. Jonathunder (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I know, sorry. The thing is that Wikipedia's dogmatic rules can get really annoying sometimes. Incendiary Iconoclasm 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to developing free license content. This has had a very significant impact on the world today. Could we use a non-free image to depict living people? Sure. As an encyclopedia, we have very wide latitude under the law to use protected works. Anyone trying to come after us for copyright infringement would face a pretty tough uphill battle to successfully sue us. Yet, that's not our purpose here. Our purpose is far loftier than just being an encyclopedia. As a direct result, we are sticklers and yes, sorry, dogmatic when it comes to insisting on free content if at all possible. It isn't bullshit. It isn't pathetic. It's a very, very noble cause. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even I would consider donating a 50€-100€ for displaying an image of Kim Jong Un, but sadly that does not seem possible. Ceosad (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Languages Publishing House

I hope everyone had a good Christmas. To continue with the eBay idea in the previous section, I found a book that is listed on eBay and at a North Korea Books website about Kim Jong-un in 2013. The publisher is out of Pyongyang, but I have not been able to find explicit copyright information. I have seen a number of PDFs on the University of Oregon website that do not list copyright information within the pages, and if it were copyright would not likely be on an external academic site. If these publications are in fact not copyrighted, and the images in the 2013 book are not KCNA, then perhaps we could use one of the images in that book. If anyone has more information on the publisher or knows whether the images are in copyright, please let me know. If they are copyright, we can review all of the sources that have been identified as being copyright thus far to assist with future searches. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be still be Xmas for Hammersoft, so I will attempt an answer. Every photo is copyright when it's created. There is no process through which the creator has to go through to copyright the photo. The only reason a photo will not be copyright is if the copyright has expired (which in most places, I think, means taken before 1955 which in North Korea means 50 years after the death of the creator or 50 years after publication if the creator is an institution, enterprise, or organisation) or if the copyright holder (creator) has waived all their rights (i.e., a "free license"). Thus, we need an explicit authorisation by the copyright holder to put up any photo. (For example, I have uploaded some holiday snaps of North Korea. By doing that, I have lost any rights to them. There is nothing to stop a publisher taking the photo, putting it on the cover of a book and making millions – except, perhaps the quality of the photos.)--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I do not see any photos that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which would be under a Creative Commons license. Some Flikr users release their photos under various Creative Commons licenses. But in general, the simple act of uploading photos to other websites such as Facebook or other social media does not mean in any sense that you have "lost your rights" to your photos, unless you have explicitly agreed to a free license. Did you?

Under U.S. law, copyright has expired on every single photo published legally in the U.S. before 1923. Copyright on some photos published more recently has also expired, depending on whether copyright was renewed or formal copyright notice was given in the publication. But in recent decades, no formal notice, registration or renewal is required. Copyright is created and is ironclad by the simple act of publication, anywhere in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant uploaded onto Wikipedia. This was meant to be an illustration, not a distraction. A better illustration is the photo on Kim Jong Il's page of him and Putin, which has a quite nice letter from the Russian government, saying it's OK to use it. The point is, though there are "millions" of Kim Jong Un photos around, Wikipedia's requirement of a "free license" is quite onerous, both for the person trying to obtain it and for the person giving it away (presuming they have a commercial or proprietary interest to protect).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As you so correctly point out, the Russian government, somewhat like the US government, allows photos by its staff photographers to be used freely. The North Korean government doesn't. So, if Kim Jong-un ever visits Russia, the official Russian photos will be fine to use. Just like the Russian photos of his dad. Just like we can freely use the photos that Ansel Adams took while on the payroll of the Department of the Interior, or many thousands of White House photos by Pete Souza, including large numbers of famous people. Commons has something like 50 million free images, and there is nothing onerous about donating images there, if you own the copyright. I have donated about 100 of my own photos, including several portraits of notable people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Jack, Cullen. I think both of you have responded well. Just one thing I wanted to add on; an academic site has considerable latitude under fair use to use protected works without permission. Thus, their using it does not give us any indication as to the copyright status. They're most likely using it under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your responses. I think it would be best at this point to focus on the rest of the article instead of that image until something new comes up, as it's unlikely there's anything out there already that would be acceptable. As a side note, I saw on Hammersoft's page that Wikipedia has 500K non-free images, which is ironic given all our efforts on this page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCI for the strictly limited circumstances where a non-free image is allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the above, if the North Korean government did have a policy, like the US Federal Government, that the works of its employees were not copyright, this would make copyright law rather meaningless. Apart from agricultural co-operatives and very limited private ventures, the North Korean economy is state-owned. I don't think there are any private publishing houses, media agencies etc (apart from foreign media, obviously). As discussed previously, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) does assert its copyright. This is normal for state-owned media agencies around the world. However, as discussed previously, "documents of State management" including "current news and bulletins" are not copyright. Arguably, an official press release would not by copyright. However, the North Korean government appears to use KCNA as its mouthpiece. So here we are. I agree with Tony. We should all make it a new year's resolution to avoid discussing this topic until something new comes up.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the private publishing houses have been pretty much eliminated (in the aftermath of the August Faction Incident) in the 1960's, I once wrote an article that was related to that stuff. Ceosad (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Since New Year's Day has not yet arrived, I think that I am still free to comment. Jack Upland stated "As discussed previously, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) does assert its copyright. This is normal for state-owned media agencies around the world." That is completely incorrect, at least as regards US government agencies. All images created by employees of the US Federal government are copyright free, if created as part of their paid job duties. I am certain of this, and believe that the same applies to staff photographers of the old Soviet and successor Russian governments. That is why we have treasure troves of free photography on a wide range of US and Russisn topics. No one is bitching, for example, about a shortage of freely licensed photos of space exploration. Or American National Parks. Or every public meeting of an American president with any imaginable public figure. If the North Korean government ever said "all our photos are copyright free" like the US government said long, long ago, this conversation would be moot. But they haven't. The North Korean government has also allowed many photojournalists employed by commercial news agencies to travel to North Korea and photograph Kim Jong-il. And basketball players. If they wanted freely licensed photos to be available, they could invite the Jack Upland/Cullen328 photojournalism expedition to fly to Pyongyang. But they haven't. It is on them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, the US Federal Government rule is the exception, as you can see here:[17] Photos from Russian/Soviet news agency TASS are copyright; BBC photos are copyright; etc. Wikipedia is not complying with some weird North Korean law.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal on image

For as long as we don't have an free photo, I suggest that, rather than a sketch, we have a note saying, "No free license photograph available", and link to the FAQ. I suggest that the FAQ has links to the RfCs so readers can see that it has been discussed before. I suggest that in future if anyone raises the issue, they are referred to the FAQ in the first instance. There is no point running through the same arguments year after year. It drowns out other discussions which could improve the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The article already has a freely licensed image. Images need not be photographs, as our article William Shakespeare shows. The fact that you do not like the current image does not mean that we should violate image policy. Your dislike of the image should motivate you to find a better copyright free or freely licensed image, instead of endlessly lobbying for including a copyrighted photograph against policy.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been "endlessly lobbying" on the issue. I've made some brief comments over the past year (mainly in January). I started the RfC because I saw the issue dominate this talk page, as it has for years and years, and drown out other issues. I'm in the minority of participants this time who did not also participate in the RfC 3 years ago. It has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. The problem with the sketch is that it attracts attention and, rather than contributing to the article, detracts attention from everything else. I don't believe the sketch contributes anything, as it is easy to find a photo of Kim. The idea of having a note rather than a sketch was previously put forward by GeraldShields11 on 12 October and by Sca on 18 May. Even if we keep the sketch, we could still have a link to the FAQ to lessen the likelihood of passers-by revisiting the issue on this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that linking to the prior RfCs in the FAQ would be quite useful. I've been planning on adding links to the prior RfCs once the RfC above has been archived by the bot, providing a permanent link we can use to the recently completed RfC. As for replacing the current image with a note, no. Many years ago consensus was achieved to deprecate placeholder images. Since local consensus can not override global consensus, you'd first need to get consensus to allow placeholder images across the entire project and then get consensus to use a placeholder image here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What about a link to the FAQ accompanying the sketch?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: This is the second time you mention an ancient person as an evidence we don't need real photos. First, you said the George Washington article didn't need a pic and now you mention Shakespeare. Look: The reader will understand if there are no pictures of people who lived a century ago. They'll know that cameras didn't exist at that time. But now we're in the 21st century, and if we have an article about a living person, there should be an actual picture of him/her. Incendiary Iconoclasm 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither Shakespeare nor Washington are "ancient" and portrait photography by camera goes back 175 years. The most important point is that "image" and "picture" are much broader concepts than "photograph". Policy says that only copyright free and freely licensed images of living people should be used. The policy is quite clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very large number of biographical articles about living people without photographs. Jonathunder (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, people that are not those regularly in the public spotlight (eg people like professors, scientists, and writers, in contrast to politicians, actors, and musical artists) really don't need an image on their page because their visual appearance is irregularly tied to their notability; even for those in the public perception, this is sometimes unnecessary. Of course if a free image is available, by all means, that does no harm to the project's free content mission. Please that I am not advocating going back to eliminate all non-frees of deceased persons that are not public figures, but it should be pointed out there is no immediate allowance to use a non-free of a deceased person, though it is a common thing to do regardless. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion just proves my point. Despite the debate being "over", the arguments rage on. (But at least I now know who William Shakespeare was.) It is simply ridiculous to go on arguing about a topic for year after year after year. I can only see three sensible options: (1) find a free photo (several attempts underway), (2) allow a fair use photo due to exceptional circumstances (apparently rejected), or (3) implement a better strategy to minimise the constant arguing. I have suggested a strategy. As far as I can see, the global consensus mentioned by Hammersoft was against "placeholder images". I wasn't suggesting an image, just a note.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I will agree with Jack Upland for this case. The whole mess just has been going on for years, and has been very annoying. I have just let my meat puppet friend Finnusertop take care of this crap for over a year, since I have agreed with him multiple times. A note might be somewhat helpful. My efforts to obtain a free image will be continuing, and there are also the greatly appreciated efforts by Tonysteward14. I do not have time or energy to keep monitoring this talk page for (stupid) arguments that tend to surface once a month. There are a lot of half done business in the North Korea project for me to do. (Like the movie stuff, and some other crap that has been getting stale in my sandbox.) Ceosad (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just got an email from AP Images with a generic response, but also a contact of one specific person who works in the AP office in New York. Should I contact this person? I don't want to waste their time if there's no realistic chance of getting a freely licensed image as AP normally requires licensing, but if there's something in particular I should say to them then I can go ahead and see what they say. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't ask, the answer's automatically 'no'. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and sent the email. I don't think I'll be able to pass NFCC 1 and 2, but at least the chances are better than 0% as you said. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: Use of non-free image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it permissible for this article use a non-free image of Kim Jong-un?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

View of Jack Upland

There was a Rfc on this issue back in 2012. Then it was said that there are exceptions to the policy against non-free images for living people in the case of prisoners, fugitives, and recluses. I think Kim's case is analogous to these cases. His case is unique, and this justifies a unique exemption. While it is possible to visit North Korea (as I have), the movement of visitors and the taking of photographs is heavily restricted. Many of the arguments made then are no longer valid:

• "Putting 'Kim Jong-un' into Google images returned nearly 3 million hits."
• "He's less than 30 years old, and has only just entered office."
• "I've no doubt that we will soon see statues and the like erected"
• "It is thus perfectly possible for someone to travel to Korea and take a photo of one of those propaganda posters or statues. Thus, getting a free photo is easy."
• "not enough work has been done by Wikipedia contributors on this matter"

Despite constant discussion for three years, no one has come up with a free image. Statues and posters of Kim have not appeared in North Korea. Many editors in 2012 made assessments about the possibility and probability of getting a free image. Those assessments should be reassessed in the light of experience.

Users who endorse this view

• Support --Jack Upland (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support We have had such arguments for several years now. There were always some who claimed that it was easy to obtain a free image of Kim Jong-Un. However none has, so far, appeared. So far as to the relevance of their arguments. They claim things they will never be required to prove which makes it quite easy to them to block every reasonable solution. --Maxl (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

View of Snow Rise

Support exemption to utilize a non-free image in this space. As a general rule, I'm a real stickler when it comes to precluding non-free content anywhere on the the project. Nevertheless, I was won over some three and a half years ago to notion that if there was ever a circumstance which our non-free content exemption policy was meant to serve, this is it. Kim is a head of state, a major world leader, a fixture in regional and global politics, a lightning rod for media attention, and just generally a figure for whom we want a high-quality article and well-rounded coverage. In that context, the lack of an image is for our users is a major detriment to our coverage.

It's worth noting that the last few times this issue has been raised via broad community discussion, a substantial (if not overwhelming) majority of editors contributing an !vote felt that an exemption was justified. However, these numbers notwithstanding, the minority, were able to maintain the status quo through sheer will and by arguing vociferously that an exemption would never be justifiable so long as there was any hypothetical scenario in which an free-equivalent image might be created. This position has been argued particularly ardently by users Masem and Hammersoft, who, if you'll forgive some WP:CRYSTALBALL, I expect will spearhead the argument against the exemption this go-around as well. Mind you, I've never for a second regarded their efforts as anything but good-faith; they are clearly looking out for the project here and view our free/non-free content policies as particularly sacrosanct and necessary to insulate the project from liability--I happen to agree with this notion, by and large. Nor do I mention them in particular to needlessly personalize what should be a discussion about the content itself. Nevertheless, I feel as if their views have, in the past, been very dogmatic on this issue and that they generally refuse to accept that this situation is analogous to other exceptions that have been made for figures for whom free-equivalent images are unlikely to be forthcoming. Thus I want to address their concerns from the outset and, hopefully, either win them over this time or at least counter their fervency some.

The afore-mentioned exceptions in which non-free BLP photos have been allowed have generally concerned people who have retired from the public eye and maintain a low profile or have been sent to prison and are thus inaccessible. Arguments and prognostications have been made for years that, by comparison, someone is bound to snap a photo of Kim for use here, simply as a result of his statute. Frankly, I've always been a little bewildered that this argument would be forwarded by editors in this space who are clearly familiar with North Korea's socio-political landscape and the Kim family's place within it. Kim Jong-un is thoroughly insulated by the DPRK's state security and propaganda apparatus. Outside media (indeed any non-state media) are allowed miniscule access to the man. Most (if not all) images that have surfaced of Kim come from said state media. The people of North Korea live in a social reality where it is simply inconceivable that one might be allowed to snap a photo of their leader in order to share it with the non-Korean world, without the risk of dire consequence. Nor would any of them not working for the state have an opportunity to come into close enough proximity Mr. Kim to do so. Even if some highly unlikely hypothetical citizen did surreptitiously take such a photo, it is unlikely he or she would have access to the internet. And even if they were amongst the elite that had some online capability, it would probably be North Korea's insular internet.

So we can safely say that the notion that a private North Korean citizen will A) get close enough to Mr. Kim, B) take a photo without incident, and C) upload it to Wikipedia, where he contributes, is just not within the realm of possibility. Obviously, the challenges to a citizen of another nation visiting the DPRK would be even more formidable; any attempt by such a private citizen would almost certainly result in imprisonment on espionage charges; visitors have been routinely arrested for less when it suits the North Korean regime's political ends. Another free-equivalent route that has been posited is that Mr. Kim will visit a foreign nation with freer press-rules and that an enterprising Wikipedian will take a photo then. This scenario is scarcely less speculative than the one above. To the best of my knowledge, no member of the Kim family has left North Korea after assuming leadership of the nation in decades. Even if they did, it is a safe bet that it would only occur on the soil of select allies who have similar restrictive press rights and any such visit would likely be shielded from any significant form of public view in which someone fishing for a free-use image would be participating. This leaves only the state media of North Korea or foreign media. In either case, the image would be non-free and there is little to suggest either avenue would result in a donation for our purposes here. And note that efforts have been made in the past to contact both the DPRK's state media and one of the few foreign media companies who have operated inside North Korea in recent years. Neither effort resulted in a free-use image being granted.

Taking all of this context and information together, it is clear that a free-use image spontaneously becoming available is immensely unlikely, short of a speculative scenario of considerable upheaval in North Korea. Point in fact, I think it is immensely less likely that such an image could be acquired of Kim than that a similar image could be taken of some of the recluses and prisoners for whom non-free exceptions have been made in the past. Policy does allow us to make exceptions to our non-free content prohibitions where a strong case can be made that a free alternative is not reasonably forseeable. I can't imagine a stronger case for that scenario than the one we are looking at here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

• Support Snow ^{let's rap} 08:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support fair use of non-free image due to exceptional circumstances. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Fine with all criteria, even #1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose..." The images we have now are not equivalent. They are not equal to a photo and there is nothing free anywhere that is available. Badly needing a photo is one of the reasons I wasted 6 hours on this. Heck, yes. Let's add a photo. The current image was viewed 118,035 times in October! So, would have to find one not owned by some media group. Any ideas on that front? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Most definitely Kim Jong-un is a special case and an exception must be made even though the same people as always argue against it. It's quite unlikely to obtain a picture of him the normal way therefore there is only this way! Some here have "argued" for years that "we can reasonable expect someone to uploead a freely licensed file". This file has not materialized in several years now. So far as to their arguments. --Maxl (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

View of Masem

• Strong Oppose as the suggestion goes against the WMF's resolution: "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." WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here - we know Kim Jong-un does go out in public in NK, that media have photographed him, so the expectation that someone else could photograph him and license that freely is high. The only time we don't allow for that is for someone that we know is incarcerated or a known recluse that avoids going out in public, neither which Jong-un qualifies as. There is also no requirement to have a portrait here; his appearance is not part of why he is notable nor is his appearance not discussed in any manner, so the impedius to break NFCC#1 and the WMF's resolution just to have an image that a quick google search can satisfy is simply not there.

Users who endorse this view

• Support --MASEM (t) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC
• Support in general. Excellent point regarding his appearance not being part of why is he is notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As Masem quite accurately points out, the fact that nonfree image of the subject are regularly created shows that creation of a free image is possible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Masem makes an important point here: a person who goes out in public is indeed in public space and thus within reach of photography. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Dennis Rodman and several other basketball players visited with Kim Jong-un, taking snapshots in large numbers. One of those people could freely license an image. It is highly likely that Kim Jong-un will visit Russia within the next few years, and freely licensed images of him will emerge from that visit, as they did of his father. There are plenty of copyrighted images of him available, and there is no evidence that the North Koreans are actively trying to suppress freely licensed images. It is just that no one who is a Creative Commons activist has yet taken a photo of him. We illustrate our biographies of people who died before the invention of photography with excellent paintings. A volunteer painter with photorealistic skills could complete a portrait of him and freely license a copy of it. I see no compelling reason to deviate from established policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

View of Finnusertop

Oppose: As was the case at the time of the previous RfC, the Foundation's resolution, our local policy (NFCC) and our guideline concerning the use of non-free images have not changed. Consequentially, there are no grounds for changing our position concerning the present issue. I wish to thank especially Snow Rise for their reasoning above. I use this opportunity to note that I'll be mainly commenting on those arguments because they are the most comprehensive so far in this RfC and are representative of many that have been made in previous discussions. I will make some individual points below:

• NFCC#8 (contextual significance) is met, but that's not the issue: Any discussion on the topic begins from the assumption that we want a high-quality image of Kim Jong-un. I believe it's the motivation behind this RfC and it's the primary motivation behind all votes in favor of using a non-free image in this article. Everyone agrees with this premise; this article would be better, more encyclopedic and have more educational value with such an image. Crucially, those in opposition to including a non-free image here are more than likely to agree. Translated to the language of our NFCC, such an image would meet NFCC#8 here. Such is, in any case, the matter with a picture of any person used in the infobox of his/her article. NFCC#8 never was the issue; WP:NFCC#1 ("no free equivalent ... could be created") was and remains so.

• North Korean law has excellent recognition of free content; it's our loss that we don't make use of it: Some people have tried to argue that North Korea is somehow "different" in terms of copyrights. From the legal point of view, this is not true. North Korea has a copyright law that is entirely sound and recognizes both copyright and free content. Comparatively speaking, it's even pretty liberal in terms of free content: North Korea, unlike South Korea, has freedom of panorama. State documents including news items (unless commercial) are automatically in the public domain, and given the social organization of that country I would assume that this covers a significant amount of publications.

That there exists no free content movement in that country does not preclude the possibilities of the creation of free content. It's an issue with systemic bias, not with copyrights, and systemic bias is precisely what NFC is not designed to address (ie. some places will always be isolated and not cared about by/interested in the free content movement, but "No one has bothered to take a free photo" has never been a valid WP:NFCC#1 rationale).

• Argumentum ad North Korea is not specific enough for an exemption concerning just Kim Jong-un: Many seem to think that the reason we can't obtain a free photo is because North Korea is North Korea. Everything about it seems to stand in our way of creating free alternatives. This argument is valid on some counts and not so valid on others, but reducing everything to it is dangerous. Kim Jong-un is not the only North Korean personage with an article that's missing a picture. Indeed, our chances of getting photos of some other North Koreans are probably even poorer, since they don't make trips abroad or have propaganda posters made. If the only reason we can't get a picture of Kim Jong-un is that he lives in North Korea, this applies to virtually every other North Korean as well. This makes Snow Rise's argument about the unique situation surrounding Kim Jong-un - "if there was ever a[n] [exception], this is it" - less convincing. A rationale on these grounds consequentially runs the risk of universalizing the special exemption to either "hard to get" or "people living in North Korea".

• Speculation is not bad, it's required: In the previous RfC, some users complained that the treatment of the matter was excessively speculative. Snow Rise's analysis of the North Korean "socio-political landscape" in the current RfC is necessary, and not just idle speculation, because NFCC obliges those who support the usage of non-free images to think of why it is not possible to create a free alternative. Those who are put off by the speculative nature of these debates should keep in mind that it's actually the proof that a free alternative can not be created that the criteria calls for. I salute the effort made by Snow Rise but will point out some flaws below.

We have conceived of a number of different ways of getting a free image (as a tourist, Kim's visit to Russia, propaganda posters, us drawing a sketch) and that makes the likelihood of getting a free alternative reasonable. Sure, some of the presented means are wildly speculative, but not all of them have to happen - one is enough. Many (e.g. state visits and propaganda posters) have happened in terms of the two previous Kims and that's where we've got our images from. These are likely scenarios and have not been conclusively refuted.

Jack Upland claims that some speculated ways of obtaining a free image "are no longer valid" based on the fact that they have not been actualized yet. As Masem said in the previous RfC, there is no such thing as interim fair-use while we wait for the creation of free images.

• A state visit by Kim is likely and so are resulting free images: Unfortunately, some of Snow Rise's conclusions are severely flawed because he makes them based on information that's not up to standard. Notwithstanding Snow Rise's account, North Korean leaders have not hesitated leaving the country soon after assuming power. Snow Rise's real mistake though is to assume that such a visit "would only occur on the soil of select allies who have similar restrictive press rights". It is exactly the opposite. Visits to Russia is where most free photos of Kim Jong-il have come from, as the Kremlin publishes theirs with a free license. Kim Jong-un has already scheduled and cancelled two state visits, and I have a hard time believing his doing this just for fun. He probably has his reasons not to make those trips right now, but also reasons to make them at any rate. This was and is the most likely scenario, and my opinion is that it is reasonable in this quality.

• The 'prisoners, fugitives, and recluses' rule can either support or oppose the use of a non-free image: The Foundation resolution in its wording implies that for some living people, non-free image are acceptable. This is often taken to mean 'prisoners, fugitives, and recluses', although I've been informed that this oft-cited exemption to WP:NFC#UUI is not documented anywhere. This list of exemptions has been used to both support and oppose the use of a non-free image for Kim (either because his status is said to be analogous to these conditions, or because his status as a hard to get statesman is not on the list). Either way, I think it's a significant problem that this 'rule' has not been systematically discussed or documented, even if the Foundation resolution would allow us to take it all the way to a local policy level.

• News agency images automatically fail NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities): Snow Rise assess, in my opinion quite correctly, that "[m]ost (if not all) images that have surfaced of Kim come from said state media". This is a significant problem because it means that even if we were to meet all other NFCC, we would still automatically fail NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities).

• Conclusion Fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#2. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes

References

Users who endorse this view

• Support Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Excellent points all around. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Soundly and accurately argued. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The freedom of panorama gives a powerful argument in support of abstaining from fair use. An official illustration of Kim Jong Un is very likely to surface in the recent future. Regarding the speculations on socio-political landscape, I have to add that it took Kim Jong Il until 1997 to complete his succession process, so it might be so that Kim Jong Un has just recently taken the full control, thus making it more and more likely that he is able to make a state visit abroad. Additionally, the North Koreans are increasingly knowledgeable about copyright laws (even if the previous attempts to harass North Korean ambassadors did not result in them releasing a photo with correct licensing), mainly due to foreign investment, so I have to take a steadfast stand in protection of the copyright. These continuous discussions about Kim Jong Un's photo are extremely fatiguing, and I hope we could finally reach a lasting consensus... It might be just easier to persuade someone like Kenji Fujimoto, as he is not affiliated with media or governments, to release one of his photos to the public, as he is the most prominent private citizen to visit North Korea. Ceosad (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

View of Hammersoft

This is a clear cut NO on base principles:

1. Foundation resolution: The Foundation's principles on this are unequivocal; we can not allow the use of an on-free image "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". Supporters of using a non-free image would focus on "reasonably expect" and say we have proof, through years of absence, that it isn't reasonable to expect a free image of him to be made available. This is false. Proof of this are the free images available at Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung. Both of Kim Jong-un's predecessors have free images available. Any claim that we can't ever get a free image of him falls flat on its face on this point alone.
2. Too early in office: Kim Jong-un has been in office for ~4 years. Yet, we're already giving up hope of ever getting a free image of him? He's 32 years old. He's likely to live for another 40-50 years. We're maybe 10% into his reign, and we're giving up already? Why?
3. Travel: Just this year, Kim Jong-un was slated to travel to Russia. It is likely he would have had a photo taken of him there that we could have used, as is the case for his father (See File:Vladimir_Putin_with_Kim_Jong-Il-2.jpg, which completely refutes Snow Rise's assertion that Kim family members do not leave North Korea). Unfortunately, the trip was cancelled [18]. However, this does not preclude another such trip being planned in the future. His father traveled to Russia and China several times during his reign.
4. Public photos in DPRK: To suggest there will never be a photograph of him placed in the public eye in North Korea is defied by the existence of such photos of his father and grandfather, quite in public view. There are many examples of this File:North Korea (5015253795).jpg, File:Demilitarized Zone of Korea 05.JPG, File:Grand People's Study House 08.JPG, File:DPRK election.jpg, File:North Korea (5015253795).jpg. So, we are to believe that getting a similar photograph of Kim Jong-un is impossible because...it was done for his father and grandfather? This makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody has to get close to Kim Jong-un to get such a photograph.
5. Works can be donated: Works can and have been donated to Wikipedia many times in the past. In fact, enormous catalogs with more than a million images total have been made available to us that were previously not available under a free license. See Commons:Partnerships. To suggest we should give up after making one request to foreign media flies in the face of what we are. Has anyone contacted Reuters [19]? Has anyone contacted the Associated Press [20]? Has anyone contacted Forbes [21]? Has anyone contacted Agence France-Presse [22]? Has anyone contacted Getty [23]? There are so many potential sources for images, yet we're supposed to give up after one request? ONE?
6. We wait for other photos; why not this one? We have waited before for years for free images on the hopes that someday we would have a free image of the person. Why can't we wait here? We've waited 5 years and are still waiting for a free image of Colton Harris-Moore. We've been waiting 11 years for a free image of Hussam Abdo, yet we have plenty of non-free images of him available [24]. Yet still we wait.
7. One of the most photographed people in the world: Given he is a national leader, Kim Jong-un is one of the most photographed people in the world. Not only is it possible to photograph him, it is done frequently in all sorts of situations, by all sorts of photographers, from all over the world. If we are to give up we effectively give up on what we are. We have embraced the difficult before. If we give up here, we might as well give up on the entire project's stance on non-free images.

In summary: The Foundation's Resolution will not permit the image, and this can not be eroded. His predecessors have plenty of images available of him freely available in the public eye. He is one of the most photographed people in the world. We can and do wait for free images of living people who are not readily accessible. His predecessors both traveled abroad, and he himself nearly did so this year, where free images of him were likely to have been obtained. Millions of photos are donated to Wikimedia; the idea we'll never get one for him is provably false. Completely insufficient efforts have been made to obtain an image from innumerable agencies that have images of him.

Users who endorse this view

• Support Really, this is an easy call. I don't mean to deride those who would support using a non-free image. But, this whole debate goes to the very core of what Wikimedia is. Give up here, we might as well give up on WP:NFCC period; it's that easy of a call. Thousands of images, if not tens of thousands, have been taken of him. To give up when there is such an ocean of images is tantamount to saying "we quit; we give up on our free content mission". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We are again discussing bending our rules because we want an image to illustrate the article when there are four at the top of this page labeled A, B, C, and D. Jonathunder (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Soundly and accurately argued. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. All arguments are valid. The one about being too early is a very important one. It took three or four years to complete succession back when Kim Jong Il became the leader of North Korea. It is also important to remember that those public photos mentioned are legal due to North Korea having the Freedom of panorama unlike South Korea. Ceosad (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support All arguments by Hammersoft are good. In particular, there simply isn't a deadline in the policy for when free images must appear. The guideline even talks about free images "ever" becoming available in some cases (There is a discussion concerning this here and here). The latter link also contains an excellent explanation by Masem on why we are not obliged to start asking for permissions prior to resorting to fair-use. Based on that explanation, I would say that while Hammersoft's point on donations is valid, we couldn't rely on donations only. Hammersoft has, of course, pointed out other means of obtaining free alternatives as well. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

1. As I said, a lot of the views in 2012 predicted or implied that a free image would "soon" be available. How soon is soon? Hammersoft made a comment in 2012 that implied 2016 was a long way off. But now we are told it is "too early". So can I ask the "Opposition" now, when they would accept a non-free image? Or is the answer "never"?
2. As I said, opinions of probability should be reassessed based on experience. But three years on, we are hearing identical arguments about how "likely" it is that a free image would be obtained. Therefore, the "speculation" is not reasonable. It is not based on reality. It is purely dogmatic. If editors want to hold onto the "letter of the law", so be it. But it is misleading and time-wasting to argue about likelihood and whether it is too soon, when they would never accept a non-free image. (Though apparently it's OK with Caitlyn Jenner.)
3. Masem states that Jong Un's "appearance [is] not discussed in any manner". This isn't true. The article discusses his weight, his health, and his youth. It quotes a description of him as the "spitting image" of his father. It is frequently said that he looks like, or is trying to look like, his grandfather, though this isn't currently in the article (because I recently removed it). In addition, there is occasionally some confusion between the three Kims, so having a picture of Jong Un is important.
4. I don't accept Finnusertop's argument that an exemption here would mean an exemption for all North Koreans. Surely notability can be taken into consideration.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• • NFCC#1 has no time requirement - though practically the only thing we're not going to wait on is for a non-free to fall out of copyright if that is more than a few months out. As long as Jong-un is still alive, the potential for a free image to be create still exists, and we will wait for that. And all those facets of his appearance like his weight/etc. are trivial and do not need a picture to be realized. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also on the Caitlyn Jenner cover, that cover is the subject of significant discussion so clearly meets NFCC#8, and there's no way to represent that cover with a free image, so NFCC#1 is met. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So the answer is "never", and most of the counter-arguments above were irrelevant. Regarding NFCC#2, I don't see how taking an old photo from KCNA would interfere with their "commercial opportunities".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Age rarely impacts commercial opportunities for press images, since they can have historic value. But the NFCC#2 issue with those are far less a problem compared to NFCC#1's free replacement aspect. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your point 3., Jack Upland: I actually argued for the use of a non-free image as an object of critical commentary regarding Kim's appearance earlier, here. A picture of a limping Kim, or Kim delivering a historic speech, Kim appearing with his father in public, or something similar would be something that's not replaceable (but still fails NFCC#2). You oppsed it on WP:UNDUE grounds back then, while Masem and Hammersoft thought it fails NFCC#8.

Regarding your point 4.: Notability is not a content policy, and images surely are content. Yes, Kim is a high-profile individual (which Snow Rise puts well: "Kim is ... a major world leader ... [and] a figure for whom we want a high-quality article and well-rounded coverage. In that context, the lack of an image is for our users is a major detriment to our coverage.") But this is irrelevant as WP:NFCC#8 isn't about the relevance of having an image to the whole encyclopedia, but about the relevance of the image to the article it's used in. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't adamantly oppose your suggestion, Finnusertop. I just thought the attention given to the limping Kim was over the top. It seemed at one point that the walking stick was going to get its own article. But there was commentary that KCNA showing Kim with the stick, a sign of weakness, was an unprecedented depiction of the supreme leader. So you could make a case for the importance of the photo. I'm not wedded to my previous opinions, nor do I believe that I can impose my opinions on Wikipedia. Alternatively, it seems to me that Jong Un is attempting to model himself on his grandfather, and given the family personality cult, this is an important point that a photograph can uniquely illustrate, for example:[25][26][27][28] Jong Un's appearance is certainly a talking point - including a nomination as sexiest man alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A person's appearance is always taken to be significant - that's why WP:NFCC#8 is always met for a picture for the infobox (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, see second bullet). Sadly, a person's appearance is always possible to be illustrated with a free alternative if he's alive, so I don't think Kim's looks alone alleviate my concerns about NFCC#1. A historical situation I described above, however is different both in terms of NFCC#1 (obviously, not replaceable) and NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, see first bullet). I think a weakness of this RfC was to ask whether we can use a non-free image without specifying the purpose. Specifying the purpose is part of the fair-use rationale, because it is used to determine NFCC#8 (and by implication, NFCC#1 which is the real problem). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To take the example of Jong-un photographed with a walking stick: that he was photographed with the stick and which sources considered rare since it shows fragility for the leader, that can be important to put in text, but on the image itself, to just show "a person with a walking stick", which is readily described by text, means that NFCC#8 and #1 would fail. That's a common mistake that because the press have talked about the visual appearance of something photograph doesn't necessarily mean that photograph itself is required, as long as we are using reliable sources to say that what event occurred was documented by photographs, particularly in what otherwise would be mundane, everyday situations. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to Hammersoft's fifth point above, I remember discussion about contacting Vice News and asking for a frame from their video of him and Dennis Rodman. I don't know if anyone actually reached out to them, or to other news sources that Hammersoft mentioned, but if so please let me know below. If we haven't, then we could go ahead and do so now. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think someone did contact Vice News. It's in the archives here somewhere. Obviously if there was a response it was not in the affirmative. Regardless, even if every copyright holder of every photo of Kim Jong-un were contacted and rejected our requests, we still could not host a non-free image of him here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, and got no reply. It's definitely worth another try though, as the email I contacted was probably just customer service. Finnusertop (talk |

guestbook | contribs) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And apparently no one DOES provide one, not even along those lines. It was tried many times. It obviously doesn't work the way the eternal opponents of a non-free image seem to think it does. There are those people who keep saying "Just go to North Korea - Kim is making public appearances and on the occasion a photo could be taken and provided". Obviously this has not happened in many years, shedding light to how much sense these arguments are making. By the way, they've become so old that they're sporting a beard like Father Christmas (whom it suits better). The old arguments of the opposers have long been exhausted and proven wrong. And they have obviously not been able to provide any new arguments, as their sections in the above Rfc are showing. As to John Upland's Nr. 4 and Masem's counter-"argument" that notabiltiy does not count on the wikipedia - that's clearly wrong. I understand that notability is, obviously, a very important point regarding to the relevance of contents on the Wikipedia. I have seen many discussions whether or not a lemma is notable enough to meet the relevancy criteria on the Wikipedia. Also, it is odd to see that in 2012 Hammersoft appears to have commented that it's a matter of time when an image shows up and then nearly 4 years later it's still "too early". The "never" that John Upland derived from the opinions Masen and Hammersoft stated is very obviously true. It's just a pity that some here put their own opinion above all reason. That's not helpful to the effort of improving the Wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To quote Hammersoft: "Completely insufficient efforts have been made to obtain an image from innumerable agencies that have images of him."..."even if every copyright holder of every photo of Kim Jong-un were contacted and rejected our requests, we still could not host a non-free image of him here." OK!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Has Hammersoft made any efforts of his own? Doesn't look to me like he did. --Maxl (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is there some reason I'm supposed to? This is a volunteer project. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not unless if it provides a reasonable fair use claim Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identifying and contacting other (potential) copyright holders of the Kim Jong-un photos

While we wait for Damir Sagolj's answer, we could try to identify other people who have been in North Korean military parades or at other public spaces together with Kim Jong-un. It should not be too much effort to ask some people to give us a photo. I volunteer to send an email or two.

1. Geraldshields11 contacted North Korean diplomats. They replied, but did not give us a license.

2. Finnusertop contacted HBO to obtain a frame from Vice News's video. No reply was received. We should try again, and contact Vice News instead of HBO this time.

3. I sent Damir Sagolj a message telling him that we would like to obtain a photo. Should we contact Reuters too, if he declines?

4. Associated Press has an office in North Korea. As far as I know, nobody has contacted them. David Guttenfelder of AP has taken several pictures. Wong Maye-E is another photographer who has taken some.

5. Dennis Rodman and Kenji Fujimoto are both known to have met with Kim Jong-un. I would not bother with Rodman, as Vice News/HBO has the footage, and finding Kenji Fujimoto's contact details is nigh-on-impossible as Japanese far-right would like to see him dead.

6. Ed Jones (AFP/Getty Images) has taken many photos of Kim Jong-un, but I guess he lives by selling them.

7. Giles Hewitt (Getty Images) has taken at least one himself.

Have I missed something? Does anybody want to help by digging up more people who have been credited for the photos, or by contacting these people? I would not hold my hopes too high for the folks at Getty Images, or for other similar image sellers. Has anyone ever seen a video that has been clearly attributed to some journalist? Ceosad (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I emailed David Guttenfelder, and will let you know if I hear anything back. He has a few good photos of him in addition to many other great DPRK images, so hopefully we can make something work. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tonystewart14! I will soon email those folks who work for Getty Images, if I can find their contact details. I will also try to contact Vice News/HBO today. I haven't yet heard anything from Damir Sagolj, but I presume from his Twitter that he might be still in China, so he might have been too busy to read my message. Ceosad (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have been somewhat lazy and the Getty Images people are still to be contacted, but I will continue these efforts more actively after the holidays, as there have been some unforeseen problems that have come forth. I guess this stuff will also greatly help those folks who want to justify using fair use or non-free images. (Like Jack Upland?) I will keep contacting people until at least the all reasonable ways to get a photo (by simply asking) have been exhausted. This effort is not abandoned. Any help is still appreciated. Ceosad (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I hope you have not been in ICU. Assuming we do not get a free photo, I do think it would be a good idea to document any responses (or lack thereof) for future reference.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you're getting better Ceosad. For the images, it's probably taking longer for others to get back to us due to the holidays, so perhaps sometime next month we can go through and make a list of everyone we've contacted with the results, as well as others that would not be freely licensed (such as the AP). That will help greatly in narrowing the search. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Tonystewart14: Thanks, I am fine, and the situation for me (at least at this point) has been about taking care of another person's affairs, as she is still in the ICU ward. I just wanted to mention that I will keep documenting the responses, and contacting the photographers after a break, rather than disappearing. Writing emails and searching contact details just takes a lot of time. Jack Upland, I thought you were one of those more active people who have argued that "reasonable efforts" have been taken to obtain an image, and that would allow fair use? At least that is one of the arguments that have surfaced once in a while here. Perhaps my memory failed me? If I was mistaken, apologies. Tonystewart14, I am sure we can work out something next month. I will have more time next week. Ceosad (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are these images free?

• Kim Jong Un (North Korean Ambassy in Havana): is the North Korean embassy in Havana a public place as defined by c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Cuba, making this free? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• No. Derivative work, and it's unknown if the people displaying it had rights. The original comes from KCNA. See [29]. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be pretty certain that the people at the North Korean embassy had rights. Whatever the case, I asked someone at Commons and they said it's not a permanent display, and hence fails FOP. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know. It's possible it could be free, but uncertain. This begs the question though; the intersection of countries where North Korea has diplomatic missions and those countries with freedom of panorama for photographic works could yield some potential. For example, the North Korean embassy in Mexico, were it to display any image of Kim Jong-un in public, would be a source. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it's easy snap a photo of any newspaper that is publicly displayed in the Pyongyang Metro. See c:Category:Rodong Sinmun. Kim Jong-un is featured daily. (as far as I know, FoP in NK doesn't necessitate a permanent display) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I know the most recent RfC failed to grant using a non-free image. But, your point and mine shred any remaining doubt on the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How crushing!!! Is the RfC over? Does it need to be formally closed with a consensus stated?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The last one didn't. RfCs typically run 30 days, and this one has done so. There's clearly no consensus to include a non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)