此文件已被提出存废讨论。請前往此处就该文件是否应被删除进行讨论。 提報存廢討論的理由：非自由报纸扫描图片，但该报纸或文章并非条目评述的主题，编者无需提供非自由报纸扫描件来证明某一报纸曾刊登过这一报道，使用维基百科:列明来源规定的格式引用即可。违反WP:NFCC#1和WP:NFCC#8。 请不要在存廢討論尚未结束时移除本模板。 提報者請遵循如下步骤完成提報該文件存廢討論。 提删者如没有使用Twinkle，请手动完成以下事项： 1 在上載者用户讨论页中加入以下文字： {{subst:Idw|File:Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG}}--~~~~ 2 複製文字 Evening Standard headline about Ian Tomlinson, April 2 2009.JPG ，然後点击這裏並依照指示提交。

	本圖是報紙頁面或文章的掃描圖像，受到版权保護。版權極可能屬於出版本報的報社、或提供文章或圖片的人士。有鑑及本圖： 只用於说明出版物或刊登的文章； 在图像上可以看到完整的出版物名稱，或者在其图像描述页上写明出版物的名称； 可以合理的预期，目前不可能存在或创建版权自由的作品；或者不可能創造任何版權自由的作品以提供同样重要的信息； 儲存於美國伺服器、由非牟利的維基媒體基金會營運的中文維基百科； 使用本圖的維基百科編輯者相信，可以根據美國版權法或當地版權法的「合理使用」（fair use）原則而最低限度地使用低解像度的掃描圖像。在維基百科或其他場合，以其他原因使用本圖，均可能構成侵犯版權。詳細請見Wikipedia:合理使用。
合理使用 //zh.teknopedia.teknokrat.ac.id/wiki/File:Evening_Standard_headline_about_Ian_Tomlinson,_April_2_2009.JPG

Description: Image of Justin Davenport and Danny Brierley, "Police pelted with bricks as they help dying man", Evening Standard, 2 April 2009, about the 伊恩·汤姆林森之死.

The article stated that Tomlinson was a "heart attack victim found in an alleyway," and that the police fought to save his life while protesters hindered them with a "barrage of missiles." On 7 April 2009 The Guardian published video footage showing that Tomlinson had been assaulted by a police officer minutes before his death. Later footage showed no barrage of missiles, but one bottle thrown, probably plastic, according to The Times (David Brown, "Ian Tomlinson: 'See you tomorrow, Barry, if I'm still living and breathing'", The Times, 9 April 2009).

Source: [1]

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:

1. It is an historically significant image, illustrating the results in the media of apparently misleading briefings that became the subject of an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Evening Standard is London's evening newspaper, and as such is a news leader. Their article, and particularly the headline, became the subject of commentary (for example, Owen Jones, The Establishment: And how they get away with it, Penguin, 2014, p. 138), and our article would be significantly less informative without it.
2. It is of significantly lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality.
3. The image has no monetary value that our use of it would affect.
4. It is being used for information purposes in an article about the event it depicts.