Talk:Onipaʻa Peace March

Honolulu Star Advertiser image

Non free content concerns raised are as follows;

• "‎1993: copyrighted newspaper photo" specifically NFCC#2-

• NFCC#8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) -

• "[T]ransparently spurious use rationale" -

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

First, when I added the image, it was added because of its historic significance as well as illustrating specific, sourced references to the image itself on the article, because of that historic significance.

• "NFCC#2 Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.". Where this has been successfully argued in the past, it was over more recent photos that had a greater potential for purchase that was demonstrated by the newspapers multiple sales to other news or websites. The market role of a newspaper's image is dependent on originality. In this case, two images were taken simultaneously. One has been used on the cover of a book publication and the other was used on the cover of the Honolulu Star Advertiser the day after the event but also published in a University of Hawaii at Hilo. Dept. of Geography Atlas in November of 1998. It's attribution is courtesy of the newspaper, not copyright of the newspaper. Because the photographer is also a copyright holder here and the newspaper has published without a copyright claim and without the photographers attribution, it is probable that this demonstrates a narrower possibility of Wikipedia "replac[ing] the original market role". The image is also used and attributed in a similar way in the books; "Asian Settler Colonialism" and "Islands in captivity". While copyright is a given, there no attempt in any of these sources to mark copyright to demonstrate "market role". As with many images that are non free, this image has immense encyclopedic value, but nothing seems to indicate that it's use here will interfere with the copyright holder's ability to profit from their work or take the place of the market role of this image, which is already widely in use. --Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• "NFCC#8 Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Images from the original 1993, 100 year anniversary march all have copyright status and an attempt was made to locate a free image. There are no free equivalent images to replace this one. This has great significance as an image alone, as demonstrated by the text and sources. It depicts a historic march and its use does indeed "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" because the march from 2018 was an attempt to recreate the march of 1993 with people from that march.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "[T]ransparently spurious use rationale" ~ No. Actually every step of the way this image has been used here is to Wikipedia guidelines. This image is similar to another image that has been regularly deleted from the Trask article by other editors exactly for having such a "spurious use rationale" but this image is the Honolulu Star Advertiser image, not the Ed Greevy image and it's use here is to Non Free Image Criteria. First is the historic significance of the image itself, which the article specifically mentions and is sourced, and second is the significance to Trask's book and cover that relate directly to the 1993 march mentioned in text as well as discussion of the newspaper's use of the image on their cover page. --Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)