This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
other controversy: Visual China Group also now has copy rights to the famous Tiananmen Tank Man photo[edit]
The ownership chain in a story at techdirt. Chinese companies are known to comply with CCP orders. In seven more years, the Tiananmen Tank Man photo can legally be removed from world-wide distribution. 24.78.190.118 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of seven more years? Did any other articles make reference to this? (if not, it is a WP:UNDUE weight on an uncommon perspective). ViperSnake151 Talk 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the significance of seven more years, I refer to text from the article:
″Gates had finally sold Corbis to a Chinese firm called Visual China Group. Part of the deal is that Corbis' main competitor, Getty Images [..] will get to handle all licensing on Corbis images outside of China for a period of 10 years. ″ [...] ″the control and rights ownership is now with a Chinese company, which may decide at some point to try to restrict the rights to those images globally.″
Since this 'article' is from three years ago (at the time of my writing), it means there are seven more years left in the ten-year period before all world-wide distribution rights revert exclusively to VCC. VCC could, all quite legally by international laws, withdraw the Tankman image from availability for (world-wide) publication. Of course, there is still fair use of the image under copyright under certain circumstances, but if the article's prognostication (perhaps accusation) came to pass, the in/famous photograph will effectively be censored.
Techdirt publicly reported this 'controversy'. I brought the link to the Talk page because I agree techdirt isn't especially reliable and hoped somebody would know better sources. I agree with your assessment that without better sources, this is WP:UNDUE 24.78.190.118 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think realiable source should be provided to confirm this, then we could add it. Mariogoods (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
