User:Balloonman/afd/AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Admin coaching note... jpg's cannot be hosted on talk pages... thus to prevent bias, there is no link for this article.Balloonman (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's a logo!" was used to get the image kept. It's not a logo, it's a poster, and RFU at that. And it's no way official - I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday. Will ^(talk) 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I do not understand the requester's statement. Please reword and/or expand. Why do you want what done? Per what policy? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  It's replaceable fair use, thus should be deleted per NFCC #1. People are claiming it's the logo specifically to controvert NFCC, but there are so many different logos it's also a POV issue. We also can't identify the copyright owner (again, bad), or the source of the interior image. Will ^(talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, this is not a logo. It's replaceable fair use. --Coredesat 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse retention -- irrespective of whether this image does or does not actually constitute a logo, it is clearly irreplaceable in the sense that it is necessarily to illustrate the propaganda employed by Anonymous (group), which is not likely to be released in a freely licensed form. John254 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that the original argument that the image was replaceable presented in the IfD discussion was predicated on the probability of the discretionary freely licensed release of this or a similar image by a member of Anonymous (group). This argument proves too much, however: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on the grounds that it is replaceable in consideration of the prospect of the copyright holder releasing it under a free license. John254 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, I agree w/ Coredesat (talk · contribs), a free-use alternative could be used instead. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. This image is clearly non-replaceable. If you tried to create a new image using freely licensed images, it would not be the same thing, and would thus misrepresent the group. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  This image depicts the group]... and look! David was nice enough to release it under the GFDL! 12:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Comment: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to differentiate from Project Chanology, which is a protest David's image represents. The people in that photo are not Anonymous as a whole. Anonymous, as a whole, cannot be represented by "people". It's a group and subculture that firmly rejects representation. As such, the two uniform cartoon images most commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Despite the fact that this image uses the demotivator "poster" format, it most certainly functions as a logo. Why? The image is a graphical symbol with easy recognition that is used to identify the group. It is placed in posters, flyers, forums, and (I believe) website defacements to mark the group. The logo vs. poster point was discussed in the origional IMD which resulted in Keep, but if more evidence is needed, I now present several examples of the image in anonymous propaganda, as contrasted with similar usage of corporate logos: Anon 1 vs. Coca-Cola ad, logo of the time; Anon 2 vs. Apple ad, logo of the time; Anon 3 vs. Batman Returns, logo; Anon 5 vs. Dodge ad, logo of the time, note dodge/chrysler vs. xenu.net/anon similarity; Anon 6 vs. Half-Life ad site, logo. Apologies for the imageshack'ing - encyclopedia dramatica links are blocked, but here they are a main source of anon propaganda. Z00r (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but read my supplemental note. I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday. Nothing's going to be an official logo, thus presents a POV issue if it's used as such. Will ^(talk) 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Going into /b/ is basically the equivalent of walking into the middle of an internal marketing meeting at a company. Of course there are going to be tons of images being thrown around. However, if you look at the logos Anon presents to the outside world, there are only a few, as is consistent with how most traditional organizations (most big corporations have several logos). Z00r (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete, as soon as I saw this, I recognized it as a salable item from a popular website, and was going to nominate it for deletion myself, so thank you for it already being here! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Anonymous doesn't claim copyright. In fact, I'd say the very nature of the "organization" means they don't claim copyrights. Anonymously releasing an image with the intent that it be spread without being attributed to you is really the same as releasing something into the public domain. Mind you, anonymous isn't some hierarchical organization with a formal setup. It is really just a bunch of people who do as they please without asking for any recognition of their efforts. Anyone can join and distribute images all over the Internet. As such I would say it should really just say public domain, not fair use.

As it concerns the image being a poster, it was earlier pointed out that the image was created using a software that is on their site, but was not created by them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Works are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright holder specifically releases it into the public domain. Will ^(talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. My point is the very nature of creating something and releasing it as a member of anonymous is the same as releasing it into the public domain because that person is knowingly providing an image which will be spread around the Internet by complete strangers most likely and never attributed to them. A person giving their consent to such a thing is the same as a person releasing their work into the public domain.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I agree. The inherent nature of Anon's bases, like 4chan, is the expectation - indeed the hope - that these things will spread around, and maybe even become a meme. And it's implied then that it might be taken and manipulated, changed, etc. And geez, just look at the name. They're not going to identify themselves or claim copywrite anyway, it's part of the nature of the group. It would be difficult to prove that any single person even created the image, anyway. Posting into placed like /b/ and 4chan is implied consent to release it to the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonlaypale (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I personally don't see why we don't just use the image David Shankbone took that actually depicts members of the group, in place of this image. --Coredesat 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to differentiate from Project Chanology, which is a protest David's image represents. The people in that photo are not Anonymous as a whole. Anonymous, as a whole, cannot be represented by "people". It's a group and subculture that firmly rejects representation. As such, the two uniform cartoon images most commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete - Logo or not, it's replaceable fair use AND lacks a source. There's an available free alternative to represent the band. Lara_Love^Talk 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment These concerns are important, but they were already considered at the IfD, which resulted in keep, and no one has presented new evidence. The original IfD considered whether the image was replaceable and determined it was not. The original IfD discussed the problems with sourcing the image and determined that it was fair use even though no source could be found. Z00r (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If no source can be found, it fails WP:NFCC 10a. Simple as that. Will ^(talk) 09:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous - there is a distinction between the author and the source. No author can be found, although I'm sure listing the source where the image was obtained would be trivial. WP:Citing Sources, linked from WP:NFCC 10a states (emphasis mine), "It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes." In this case, it is unfortunate that the source author is not known, but not necessairily a deal-breaker. Thus the extensive discussion of fair use... Z00r (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a (non-ED) source: [1] post 52888075 (about 1/4 the way down the page). Z00r (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't need to be listed here. It needs to be listed on the image page. Also, I get I'm arguing the same points as the IFD discussion, thus my vote to overturn as it was wrong. One of those where the weight of arguments should have resulted in a delete against the majority vote. Lara_Love^Talk 13:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Source added to the image page! (formatting is confusing, hopefully someone with more knowledge can fix) Z00r (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and Keep The Image Documents one of Anonymous's main propaganda images. It is relevant and fair use --81.133.62.215 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep This image is the most commonly used logo for Anonymous. Like logos of companies, it should be kept regardless of copyright.--Theymos (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per LaraLove. It seems strange to me that we're even having this conversation! Obviously a blatant vio of NFCC #10a. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per LaraLove and Riana. GlassCobra 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment When looking at the IfD you'll notice a few anonymous editors came in to say it is basically the logo of anonymous and should be kept. The nature of anonymous means any logo they produce would not be clearly released into the public domain or attributed to a source. However, the nature of the group suggests anything they produce and release as a member of anonymous is public domain. I mean, a member of anonymous literally creates an image and releases it for anyone to use without attributing it to the original creator and does this knowingly, in fact, largely intending for it to happen. At the very least this implies consent for use if not an outright waiver of copyright.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  We can't use images based on implications. Either the copyright has been explicitly waived, or it's non-free. Will ^(talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least there's permission to copy, at the most it's released into the public domain. I just don't see why we're even arguing over whether this violates copyright. Given the nature of Anonymous, we'd know if they didn't want this image used. Hell, I think they already gave us their position in the IfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's hard to believe we are even having this discussion - 1) the image already passed IfD handily, 2) it is an important logo that helps distinguish the general Anonymous from the Chanology Anonymous, 3) it easily qualifies for fair use assuming full copyright, 4) even if it didn't then there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anyone would ever claim copyright or be able to enforce it, and 5) it now has a source as per NFCC 10a. I think some editors may be taking a personal vendetta out on Anonymous for past trolling and vandalism. In some sense I can understand this - from time to time their trolling has annoyed me as well - but it is not a reason to sabotage the article. Z00r (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't even paying close enough attention to realize who they are. I thought it was a band. Seemed like a strange logo for a band, but then I figured that's why people were disputing whether or not it is actually a logo. Regardless, I don't see the necessity. Where's the link that shows there is no copyright? Lara_Love^Talk 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok, well here is a bit of quick background information to get you up to speed: Anonymous (group) is an amorphous collection of internet forum and imageboard users who traditionally engaged in trolling, vandalism, prank calls, and other nonsense. However, recently they have become notable due to several real-life activities that have drawn considerable media coverage and commentary. The image in question is Anonymous's de facto logo/banner/flag - they place it in propaganda, flyers, forums, picket signs, and (I believe) website defacements as a form of identification, and it is closely tied to the group's perceived identity. No one knows who originally made the image since everything on the Anonymous boards is posted anonymously (heh), but editors such as myself believe that it falls under fair use as a logo even under the strictest copyright provisions, similar to the way the logos for corporations like BMW are considered fair use. This is discussed in more depth on the IfD page, and I will be happy to provide you with more details if needed. Z00r (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/Delete - NFCC 10a. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)