File talk:JackHensley.PNG

I don't think there is any legal ground for a copyright to be held on any part of this video in any country. Facts are:

This pic is a frame of a larger video.
That video was undeniably released to the public domain for the world to see without charge.
That video was filmed in commission of a crime involving international terrorism.

Therefore, this film and any part of it, all frames included, are part of the public domain, no matter how any particular vendor aquired it. Also, any copyright on this film could only be construed as protecting profit from an act of international terrorism. Anyone who would assert a copyright on this video or any frame therof would be extremely foolish and greedy, as it would be exposing them to criminal prosecution, as well as civil liability under the numerous "Son of Sam laws" in the United States.--Bodybagger 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many troubles with copyrights, these guys aint gonna make any lawsuits!

Video tape cover? huh? Bloodshedder 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki:Offensive suggests that offensive images should not be changed because offense is different among different cultures and that would violate NPOV. I would suggest that prominently displaying the image of a man about to be killed is offensive regardless of which culture one is from.

From Wiki:Censorship "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

Assuming the typical Wikipedia reader considers this image offensive, I would also suggest that its removal would not make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. There exists a text-based description of the events. Displaying the image does not make it more clear what is going on, instead it seems to only add shock value.

In this particular case a higher standard to value and a lower standard for offense should be considered because there are no available primary advocates for its removal should a conflict (based on interests or rights) exist. The man in the center is dead and those around him are unlikely to request the image to be removed.

Thoughts? --165.123.185.28 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your suggestion is not fact. TaintedMustard (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]