Copyright infringement: A scan from A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific by D. Pratt, P. Bruner and D. Berrett Rabo3 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement: From a Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific by D. Pratt, P. Bruner and D. Berrett Rabo3 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement: Photo taken by Jack Jeffrey, and all his photos are copyright protected; see statement on his page hereRabo3 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement: Photo taken by Jack Jeffrey, and all his photos are copyright protected; see statement on his page hereRabo3 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright probs (again; see previous uploads requests for deletion!): This illustration by - and copyrighted to - Sheryl Ives-Boynton Rabo3 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another copyrighted illustration uploaded by this user. This illustration by - and copyrighted to - Sheryl Ives-Boynton Rabo3 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another copyrighted illustration uploaded by this user (see previous 6 deletion requests). This illustration by - and copyrighted to - Sheryl Ives-Boynton Rabo3 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement: Photo taken by Jack Jeffrey, and all his photos are copyright protected; see statement on his page here. It is worth noting that users 120740a and Barati11 (see previous removal requests) appear to be heavily involved in the same articles and make remakably similar edits Rabo3 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons showing through. -Nv8200ptalk 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
picture is listed under fair use but is not currently being used in any article, so the image must be deleted Anakinjmt (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CV - License does not satisfy the image, which is a gigantic screenshot of Nightmare Before Christmas off Youtube. In addition, image quality is poor, but file size is massive (over 1 meg). Limited or no use in illustrating subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - unneeded, redundant, stupid title, violates WP:NFCC with its usage on a userpage, now orphaned. ViperSnake151 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LQ, CV - Displays copyright holder's name in the image, is off low enough quality that it is impossible to distinguish the subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned and non-encyclopedic. I created this image, and the article for which it was used has been AFD'ed. Image serves no purpose outside it's original intent. CSD doesn't seem to apply. Yngvarr 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Empty image description page for an image that is located on the commons, I had tagged for speedy deletion like is customary, but User:WikipedianProlific disagrees for some reason and removed the tag. Jackaranga (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Jackaranga (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speey Keep User:WikipedianProlific was the original author according to the Original upload log, at 2007-03-19 15:05; someone else moved it to the commons. AFAICS commons page is non-empty with GFDL-self-no-disclaimers and usual stuff. I cannot see what the problem is. Rwendland (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speey Keep The image page isn't empty, the description is there as is the image, its just the description is copied over from commons. I have an updated version as well which is in the works. I'm not sure why this was transfered to commons to be honest as its not a great diagram and its in english but nevermind. Absoutely perplexed as to why you'd want to delete it.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person above, blanked the page himself in this edit... beats me why you are so intent on keeping a blank page. Jackaranga (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm going to upload an updated version shortly (e.g. a week or maybe 2) ;) WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case the image and page seem to be acceptable now. I suggest removing the deletion tag. (Anon) 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.90.134 (talk)
Picture is perfect. I suggest removing the deletion tag. Manoj Kamath (forgot my login name - please excuse)
Speedy Keep I can see no valid reason as to why this particular image should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacharin (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the speedy-deletion tag. Users and anons here might be a bit confused, the image and description exists on Commons, and the page generated on Wikipedia was only made so that an SVG tag could be added to it (which should have been added to the file on Commons instead. The image is not up for deletion, and nothing is going away. This is a minor technicality in how pages are created here and on Wikimedia Commons. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the image page as speedy delete, WP:CSD#I2. This does not affect the underlying image at all, as Ned Scott says above. Chick Bowen 04:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan and unencyclopedic image, it's companion article was speedy deleted as non-notable Maelwys (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This non-free image (Wikipedia only) should be deleted for two reasons: (1) a Dutch court ruled that the tree will not be cut down [1], so the argument that the image is "historical" is no longer valid; (2) there is an alternative image (Image:Amsterdam Panaroma.jpg) of the tree. – Ilse@ 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The judge issued a temporary injunction, Ilse, and the question of whether it will remain is still up in the air. It seems silly and premature to delete the only decent pic we have at this juncture. Jeffpw (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - We have the written permission of the photographer to use the photo. The image that Ilse points to is a panorama of the city, and any one of hundreds of trees could be the tree in question. The photo uploaded (by me) is clearly the tree in question. I went to a lot of trouble to obtain a picture, first going to the Anne Frank house, then talking to media relations to take my own picture. Permission was denied, with the explanation that AP and Reuters have a photo, and we could use theirs. I then contacted the NYTimes photographer who took a picture and he granted us permission. Fair use is satisfied in this manner.Jeffpw (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obtaining a picture that shows the same information as this one (depicts the whole tree), is not feasible as the item pictured is in an access restricted area. Used with permission, too. User:Krator (tc) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fair use (with permission) has clearly been established, and the proposed alternative image is not at all equivalent. Aleta (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I think you've been living in Wikiland too long and should visit the real world to see how things work there. This guy is a professional photographer. This is how he earns his money. We should be grateful he gave us permission to use the image at all, rather than demanding he do this or that. I suggest you try to get a picture of this tree before you move for deleting this image. Wikipedia has been trying for a GDFL of this image for over a year, the article about the tree has been lacking an image of it, and now we have one. Jeffpw (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the use of a non-free image is not allowed if it's replaceable by a free image. Both reasons in this nomination point out that the image is replaceable, with a new image (maybe taken bynl:User:Luijt) or an alternative image (as mentioned), even though the quality might be inferior to the current non-free image. The arguments of Jeffpw, Krator, and Aleta do not justify non-free use as described in WP:NFCC. – Ilse@ 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a frikkin tree. Somebody go take a picture of it for christsakes. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You obviously haven't read any of the comments about the tree being on restricted territory, with access only through the museum. One can't just "go take a picture of it for christsake". I tried. I went inside the museum and one can't see the tree from where one can go. I asked the museum for permission to take one. They denied it. Short of breaking the law through criminal trespass, there seems no way to take a picture. I invite you to try (and perhaps read the year plus discussion here) before you take such a dismissive tone about this image. Jeffpw (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I've read all the discussion and been following this since the date was set for the tree to be chopped. I know about all the difficulties. Still, I challenge you to overcome these difficulties and take the picture regardless. Where there's a will, there's a way. If you get arrested, I'll post your bail :) Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Professional photographer or not...that man got permission so why can't an accredited reporter lets say on Wikinews? Point alos is we have alternatives...and quality is not the issue. If he is not willing to compromist to some level that all projects can benefit from it, then why bother...if it was the only picture in existence, then thats another discussion altogether. DragonFire1024 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Jeffpw said here: The museum has flat out refused permission to private persons, and will only let AP and Reuters photograph. They won't even let most reporters take a picture, if you look at the articles on-line, all of them share the same couple of images. I don't really see the problem. The general problem with fair use images is that we are using copyrighted work without permission. However this is not the case, and I feel that the image description page has a valid reason for fair use. Bottom line is-we have permission. If we didn't that would be a completely different story. Puchiko (Talk-email) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Jeffpw says, the tree may still be chopped down later, at which point we'd have to restore this picture. The panorama picture is not good enough. The museum clearly are restricting access. I suggest Kaldari not be so flippant about trespass and taking photographs without permission. Taking photographs without permission is done, but we shouldn't be encouraging it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeffpw. I wouldn't call a panorama of the city an "alternative" to a picture of this tree, and coupled with the work the uploader did to contact and recieve permission from the photographer means that we should definitely keep this one. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (1) Judge told city to reconsider removal permit so removal is not permanently barred (and tree might collapse so it is internally threatened). (2) The existing free image which I found is only of part of the top of the tree; a photo of the left side of the face of a full-body statue can not be considered a substitute for a photo of the entire statue. (SEWilco (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: If they won't let reporters in who don't have reuters or AP credentials, then thats wrong. Its not fair to other WMF projects who cannot use this image. If it cannot be free, delete it as there ARE alternatives available. Quality is not the issue here. He has the right to relicense under GFDL...if he wants to be selfish and not allow that, then delete it. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I understand that people want a quality image for the article, but unfortunately they used no valid arguments for keeping it within Wikipedia policy. But... a simple Flickr seach query returned some possible alternative images, so someone should write a request to these Flickr users the use their image(s) ([2] or [3]) on Wikipedia? – Ilse@ 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who took image 1 was contacted, Ilse, and it is not the correct tree. It is a photo from the front of the museum and was incorrectlky captioned. The second photo is new to me, but given the problem with the firtst image in your search I would be hesitant. Anyone can caption a photo with whatever text they want. The fact is the museum is restricting access, so it makes me wonder h9ow someone else could take a pic. I'm not saying it is not the right tree, just that I would be cautious. It also does not look anything like the tree pic that we currently have, so I am skeptical. Jeffpw (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the processing admin, I deem this image "replaceable", and I have deleted it. Here are my reasons.
There were six "keep" !votes, but four of those gave as a primary reason the fact that Jeffpw did a lot of work getting the photo, or that the photographer gave permission for Wikipedia to use the photo. Both are true, but are clearly not relevant to whether the image passes our WP:NFCC. The other two "keep" !voters stated that the tree might be destroyed later, as is the case with all trees (and indeed all things). Other reasons given for keeping the image included the fact that the museum does not allow the tree to be photographed, and that the existing potential replacements are deemed unsatisfactory.
In Image:Amsterdam Panaroma.jpg, the Anne Frank tree is the large brownish tree at the lower right of the photo. The photo could easily be cropped to show that tree prominently. Further, that photo demonstrates that the tree can be photographed from locations far from the museum itself. This was done before, and could be done again.
Museums do not have the legal right to physically prevent you from taking any photo you want, and cannot legally confiscate your film or prevent you from publishing pictures you take. They can kick you out for taking "unauthorized" photos, but that's it. Presumably, the Flickr image was taken by someone who didn't know that photography wasn't allowed, or didn't care, or perhaps took the photo when the rules were different. There is no more reason to doubt the authenticity of the Flickr image than there is to doubt the Herman Wouters photo in question.
Jeffpw's efforts are commendable, and we need more people to work to get high-quality images, as he has done. I hope this won't discourage him too badly. I'm saddened that the image cannot be kept, but our NFCC simply don't allow it. – Quadell(talk) (random) 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
