non-free image in an article with an existing one of the same subject. There appears no significant justification for this additional image - it fails WP:NFCC#3a as excessive use of non-free content. If the intention is to show that he wears shirts like this then either a free image of such a shirt or some text would suffice Peripitus(Talk)01:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a speedy template I can tack on as the uploader, or should I let the discussion run its course? This is one of a few images I uploaded a couple of years ago, when I wasn't well-versed in non-free content policy. Most of those images I've since orphaned and DB-F5'd, but I must have missed this one. It fails criteria 8 too - while it is an important facet of the character's personality, I don't think anyone needs to see a "bright, flamboyant shirt" to understand what one looks like. Frickative01:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the usefulness of an image depends a lot on its description and categorisation, properly done this image has a use. First of Ayapa is an alternate translitertion to the one used on Wikipedia which is Ayyappa for which we have the article Ayyappan an article that so far no images. I was also able to locate the image to have been taken in Bokaro Steel City though it already has a similar image, see File:Aiyappabksc.jpg, this one seems slightly less blurry than the one currently being used. A description has now been added to the file, transfer to Commons.KTo288 (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep or transfer to Commons, the existing file in use is a suspected copyvio and has benn nominated for deletion at Commons.KTo288 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this image meets NFCC #8, in that its omission from the article "throat lozenge" would not harm readers' understanding of what a throat lozenge is. Surely a free photograph of a lozenge itself would be much more appropriate? Indeed, I would be happy to provide one. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from Smith Brothers: "The trust funds that owned Smith Brothers stock in 1963 merged their company with Warner-Lambert. The last Smith Brothers Cough Drop manufactured in Poughkeepsie was made in 1972. They were thereafter manufactured by F & F Foods in Chicago, Illinois." From the labelling, it is clear that this image pre-dates 1978. Stifle, would you have time to tidy this one up and add the necessary image templates? At the least it should be moved to Commons, even if the images already in Smith Brothers seem to be enough already, though this image may conceivably add more to the article. Not sure why it was removed from the article. TreasuryTag, what is needed is a photograph of a lozenge from the 1870s - can you provide that? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The graph is easily replaceable by a free alternative which could be created, failing WP:NFCC#1 (the underlying data is not copyrightable). Stifle (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image is used on the page "Yankee Squadron" to "illustrate person at peak of career". Particularly since the article in question contains several free images of such people, I cannot see why this non-free image is essential to readers' understanding of the topic of the Yankee Squadron, and the FUR is not clear at all. (Note that I do not want the image deleted entirely, as its use in its subject's article appears perfectly adequate. I just want a consensus that its use on Yankee Squadron is inappropriate.) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 08:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This file has the FUR of, "To illustrate person at peak of career." Given that it doesn't show a single person, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, and don't see how the image's inclusion is essential to readers' understanding of the topic it in which it is involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to find out the date and have a higher-resolution version of this. Until then, pretty much useless, so unless more information provided or higher-resolution (which would help in figuring out the date), then delete. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a free image depicting these people "at the height of their career", and this one is inferior because it is a drawing on a poster, rather than a photograph. Therefore, as a non-free image, it should not be used, since it fails NFCC #8. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 08:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a)an illustration of the act is not essential to readers' understanding of the people themselves, and b)while it may illustrate the act, that is not the purpose of the image, according to its rationale. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this does actually pass NFCC#8. Also, the source is listed as "Billy Rose Theater Collection of the New York Public Library for the Performing Art". It is possible this is public domain. I will check. Details are here. If you want a photograph of them later in life, see here. At a minimum, links to this photos should be placed in the external links in order to satisfy WP:NPOV (providing a complete visual record, or links to a complete visual record, is an important part of scholarship and producing good articles). Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear as to how this image is essential to readers' understanding of Frederick K. Humphreys. There is no significant critical commentary on this particular product of his, just a single bullet-point mention. I think that the image is just decorative, and therefore fails the NFCC. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph was clearly not taken by the uploader, since we can see both his hands, and he was aged 8 at the time. I therefore question his competence to release this image under a free license, since there is no reason to think that he inherited the copyright from whoever took the picture. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am unaware of any policy or guideline that would claim that a grade school photograph taken during the course of school pictures, paid for and purchased by the subject or his parents, mandates that a copyright is held by whomever took the photo over 40 years ago. This is a frivolous delete nomination. School student pictures are not generally copyrighted and owned by the photographer who took them, since the photographer would willingly sell the prints to the subject. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] – if you buy a book, you don't automatically get the copyright with it, and I'm not aware (certainly not in the UK, no idea about the States) that there is any difference where it comes to photography. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 07:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you can sell something legitimately, wouldn't that imply that you own it? I have quite recently (Ps is still open;), been editing images taken by a professional photographer for the subjects of the images; I've been quite clearly embedding the photographer's copyright in the image per the agreement with the photographer. I am also personally aware of a recent purchase of school photographs from the professional photographer who took them; the invoice (US$94.61) states at the bottom:
"Please remember it is illegal to copy or reproduce professional images in any form without the photographer's written permission."
Ooh, a sneaky change – though I remain unconvinced. First, why wasn't it tagged like that before? Secondly, my own and Jack Merridew's experiences suggest that professional photos do generally come with a copyright notice... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is essentially irrelevant whether the image was tagged that way or not. The point is that if the tag of {{PD-Pre1978}} is correct, it then makes it properly tagged and deletion is a moot question. I've never seen grade school photo packages arrive with a copyright notice attached. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I must elaborate for you, TT? "What bollocks" means that I find your nomination of a picture of RAN when he was 8 years old to be rubbish. If there is some technical inaccuracy in the permissions and such, perhaps you can help right that egregious wrong. I appreciate your comment of WP:JUSTAVOTE because it serves to illustrate what a load of bollocks this particular nomination is. cheers.--Milowent (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think that this image's copyright status is clear enough for it to be present on Wikipedia, while also maintaining your unpleasant demeanour if you wish? Or are you just being unpleasant? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain for me why you are going after this picture? And yes, I am enjoying being unpleasant in this time of unpleasantness. Why nominate an editor's picture of himself as a schoolkid? Oh its an age-old question, no doubt.--Milowent (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely absurd. Do you work for the RIAA, or whatever its equivalent is for 1966 grade school photos? I am absolutely in favor of the concept of copyright, but the overzealous supposed "enforcement" of US copyright law I see on wikipedia from time to time -- asserting, for example, interpretations that even Wikimedia's own attorneys say go too far (See comment of Mike Godwin at [1]), is ridiculous. Its like editors think they are empowered to make citizen arrests or something, and go giddy with this supposed power, enforcing the law in such a way that no sane government official would ever suggest or pursue. If Richard Alan Norton (1958- ) should go to prison for posting his 2nd grade school photo on Wikipedia, send me with him! Our Letter from Birmingham Jail awaits!--Milowent (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now this is the interesting one! :-) The copyright issues surrounding school photographs are interesting! It essentially boils down to a combination of date and the contract drawn up by the studio photographer in question (as a side note, clearly the kid in this photo didn't take it, but do remember that modern cameras with remote flashes and timers means you can no longer assume that someone in a photo didn't take the photo). Anyway, back to the main points. I suggest reading (in full) this document which explains stuff for Australia (sadly I couldn't find any equivalent for other countries, but it probably exists) and gives an idea of the issues involved here. And if you really want to go crazy over studio photography copyright, read this article and all the comments attached (it is worth it, I promise). And if anyone does read all that, their reward is to write up an image policy on studio photography... (but please don't start acting like Wal-Mart and acting like the copyright police before drawing up such a policy and publicising it for discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything published in the US prior to 1978 without a copyright notice falls into the public domain. Are we looking for the best tag for the image, or is TreasuryTag just nominating everything for deletion that I uploaded to see what sticks, as a form of harassment for opposing him in an AFD? I don't see any effort by him to suggest a different tag and I don't see any friendly notices. All image tags will be deprecated over time as new ones come along, so do we find the best one, or do we just nominate for deletion? I already know where TreasuryTag stands. There is a great article about Flickr Commons and why the Library of Congress and other archives chose not to partner with Wiki Commons, over this very issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you're being harassed is irrelevant, actually (though yet again, you are not). Anything published in the US prior to 1978 without a copyright notice falls into the public domain. Yes, absolutely. But I find it very hard to believe that a studio school photograph would have come without a copyright notice. As a number of people have said, their own school photographs always came with strict warnings on the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those strict warnings usually come with proofs and sample prints sent to prospective buyers. They are effectively saying "if you want copies of these, buy from us and don't try and make copies of these sample prints yourself". What some people do is buy one print and then try and make their own copies from that, though you need a very good scanner to do that properly. Some of the more forward-looking photographers have moved to a different business model, whereby they charge for the skilful part of the job (the taking of the photos) and then provide the customer with digital files and (this bit is crucial) a license to print as many copies as they want for their own use (i.e. the printing side of the business is decoupling from the photographic side of the business). The reason you need that form or license is because (as you will see if you read the link I provided to the Wal-Mart story) if you go to a high street shop and ask them to print studio-quality photographs, they will refuse unless you can prove you are not trying to rip off the studio that produced the photos. Kinkos got sued big time for allowing too much copying like that, so now they are all very strict about this (though the article is a few years old now, so things might have changed again). Turning back to the specific issue here, as I said before, speculation is useless. Unless Richard Arthur Norton knows where the copyright resides, we are stuck here. What he needs is the year the photo was taken and the name of the photographic studio. Some people end up in a situation where the original company has gone bust and the negatives no longer exist, but the copyright still persists on the prints, which is rather silly. Most jurisdictions will allow onetime copying between different media for personal use (i.e. making a digital copy of a print, or a print from a digital original), but that is not relevant to Wikipedia uploads. It seems that school portraits (unless you have all the relevant information documented) are not allowed, and if you want to have a picture of yourself as a child on your userpage, you need to pick ones where you know the copyright information (e.g. ones where you can say a family member took the photo and has given the relevant permissions). For photos where the copyright is not clear, the best option is to upload to a personal webspace somewhere else and link from your userpage. My overall conclusion is that userspace images are more trouble than they are worth, as you periodically get situations like this where people go "but this is SILLY!" (and they are right). But that is the choice Wikipedia has made. Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. You said that before, and I don't know why you repeated it without responding to my point, which is that several editors – myself included – find it very, very hard to believe that there was no copyright notice. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to that article? It sounds interesting, and I agree that changes over time are a problem, but I do think you could take a bit more care with your image uploading as well. If you are unsure of something, it doesn't hurt to ask someone whether the right tag has been used. And going back and updating earlier work is something Wikipedia as a whole needs to address at some point. If someone politely asks you to review your earlier submissions, that is fair enough, but I also agree that what happened here wasn't the polite request that should have happened. Despite that, you need to put that to one side for the moment and focus on how to resolve the issues being raised here, even if you resent how they were raised. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i think it should not be deleted as the band is still active in japan.... and the image shows the members of the band. While other articles of other bands or individual singers are still being used currently, it shows that the deletion of the image is not necessary. Joyful563(talk)12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was properly licensed and Wikipedia is all over everyone about ensuring a proper license. If there is an issue it is with Flickr not the use here. There were other pics posted by the same user surrounding the event and the dancer is not identifiable. - Wallanon (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/query would not the fact that the author titled the photo graph as being taken at a private party certaintly suggest that it wasnt taken in a public setting? Additionally arent the male individuals here showing more skin and in fact identifiable by their faces at a private party? Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Private parties are held in public places quite frequently. The context appears to be a going away party held outdoors. Guess would be a hotel, but who knows and either way it could be seen from public grounds. The entire set is publicly viewable at Flickr. Not sure why such a simple photo is generating this much interest, but it was one photo of over a dozen. This one just happened to have a stripper in it, which was the point of interest for using it on WP. - Wallanon (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One person does seem partially identifiable (the payee) to me at least. and their are grounds to suggest wether this is or isn't in a public place though Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was properly licensed and Wikipedia is all over everyone about ensuring a proper license. If there is an issue it is with Flickr not the use here. There are many pics posted by the same user about said bachelor party and the dancer is not identifiable. - Wallanon (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring my argument for deletion. Read the image use policy then try again. Whether someone else has breached privacy rights by posting the image on Flickr is irrelevant to whether we should also. Fences&Windows17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or obtain a release from individuals Looks like a private place (ie a home/residence) in this case. Cant see any justification that its taken in a public setting Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this could fall under fair use as a historic photo or whatever later, I don't think it could be claimed right now, when other news agencies are looking for images, as this would fail WP:NFCC #2: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." —fetch·comms19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also because it is too early to be satisfied of irreplaceability. I've removed the image from the article (for the second time). Because the page is so prominent I think this is warranted while we consider deletion of the file. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that according to Xinhua the line was supposed to reopen at southbound at 8pm Beijing time and northbound at midnight Beijing time, so I think its highly likely that the line has been cleared by now (as its now 3.30am Beijing time) meaning that there isn't going to be any opportunity for any free photos to be obtained. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the image that has been uploaded is only 250px across which doesn't really make it suitable for use by other news media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image seems to be unreplaceable and WP:NFCC#7 arguments don't work as it was removed from an article as part of consideration for deletion and would otherwise pass NFCC7.Ajh16 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
