Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 17
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 17)
July 17
[edit]
- No reason to believe this is PD Abu badali (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- CV: no fair use rationale given, is the picture of a living footballer, the license claimed is not fit for the case — Phan Thanh 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- CV: no fair use rationale given, is the picture of a living footballer, the license claimed is not fit for the case — Phan Thanh 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- CV: no fair use rationale given, is the picture of a living footballer, the license claimed is not fit for the case — Phan Thanh 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- CV: no fair use rationale given, is the picture of a living footballer, the license claimed is not fit for the case — Phan Thanh 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- CV: no fair use rationale given, is the picture of a living footballer, the license claimed is not fit for the case — Phan Thanh 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- copyvio from 30Giorni article [1] — Gordonofcartoon 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
- - uploaded by Breakwaterlodge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Breakwaterlodge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Breakwaterlodge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio [[2]]; replaceable. Jheald 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](http://tourismweb.co.za/all_graphics/clients/bwater_pic1.jpg){kind=link}
- - uploaded by Breakwaterlodge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ihategabby (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Rob ashton (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, used only for vandalism of this page Iamunknown 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by PeterFrankfurt (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Chriselliswest (notify | contribs).
- I think that this image is a photograph of the Christus in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Try gooogling Christus LDS and you'll get some hits.) That said, freedom of panorama in the United States does not permit taking photographs of sculptures or works of art, even if they are situated in a public place. Thus, if this image remains both unused and tagged as "free", it should be deleted per copyright issues. Iamunknown 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Francis Tyers (notify | contribs).
- bogus fair use rationale, you don't need such a poster to illustrate the article Bleh999 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment, there is no need to use the word bogus here. A simple "inappropriate usage of a fair use rationale" would suffix. Anyone knowing Francis Tyers would agree, he is not the kind who bends the rules to his own advantage. I agree the poster is not necessary to illustrate the article. This is however not different from the multitude of articles using postal stamps to refer to the subjects depicted in the actual stamps. Regards, --Asteriontalk 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Possible keep. I think showing how Macedonia-name activists are carrying on their campaign in Brussels does add to the understanding of the story, in a way which goes beyond words alone. At issue is whether, from the content of the article with the image, one is left with the conviction that the extra understanding was worth the use of a non-free image. On balance, I think that is the case, though copyedits to the article could do more to reinforce that. The fact that the article with the image is serving to inform public discussion about a live political issue, ie a topic of public consequence, is also a point to be weighed in its favour. Jheald 10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless other sources have used this image to comment on "how Macedonia-name activists are carrying on their campaign in Brussels", our use is original research. It's not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to determine the relevance of this image in topic. --Abu badali (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by JDMBAHopeful (notify | contribs).
- Non-free photo showing Yale's 2001 Commencement, but the artcicle doesn't mention Yale's 2001 Commencement – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image showing a retired athlete holding a trophy, used to illustrate his biography and the information that he won the trophy. Claimed to be promotional but the copyright holder explicitly forbids its use. Also, our use in the athlete's biography is in direct competition with the copyright holder's use (and the other use doesn't add any new noteworthy information to the article). Abu badali (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, we have a PD image of this athlete to illustrate his bio. --Abu badali (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover where not even the magazine issue is mentioned in the article. Abu badali (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the information that this athlete was featured on this issue's cover. The cover image is described in the article but this doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information. Abu badali (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover. The magazine issue is mentioned and the cover is described, but it doesn't see to add any noteworthy information. Abu badali (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, the image and the text mentioning the image were added in two consecutive edits. It's like the image called for the text, instead of the text called for the image. --Abu badali (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The magazine cover itself is not the focus of the section that it's in. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Nacosta Music (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover, where not even the magazine's issue is mentioned in the article. Abu badali (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dowellmanson (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Kennyfarmer23 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 03:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover. Used solely to illustrate a brief mention to the magazine's issue (that was addded to the article at the same time as the image) Abu badali (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a book's cover used in an article that doens't even discusses the book. Abu badali (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-free image from Associated Press. It shows a marquee with an athlete's name, and is used to illustrate the information that the marquee in question displayed the athletes name. Abu badali (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- No evidence that this is promotional material. The image couldn't be found in the source site (that isn't a source for promotional material, by the way) Abu badali (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover, used solely to illustrate a passage mentioning the magazine issue and describing its cover Abu badali (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a book's cover used in an article not discussing the book in question (ther's a discussion about just one claim made in the book) Abu badali (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a book's cover, used in an article that doesn't discusses the book in question. Abu badali (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a magazine's cover. It's stated that the magazine issue was notable, but the image itself doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image of a book's cover. Used to illustrate an article that mentions, but does not discusses, the book in question. Abu badali (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No evidence this was released to be used by anyone as promotional material. A screenshot could be used to ilustrate this character, and free alternatives could be used to illustrate Superhero. Abu badali (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for Storm (Marvel Comics). Distributed by 20th Century Fox as promotional material [3]. X3 website also contains wallpaper, AIM icons, etc. based on this image. Therefore image is legitimate as a candidate non-free image in presenting how the comic-book character is depicted in the movies. Choice between this image or some other non-free image is an editorial decision, for discussion on the article talk page. But if this one is the one the editors want, it's compliant by WP:NONFREE.
- Do you ave any evidence that this image was distributed by 20th Century Fox as promotional material? The link you provided points to a fansite. I don't see how that helps. --Abu badali (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The site is a comics news site, which specialises in publishing official material from official publicity releases as they come out. What does it matter if is a pro site, semi-pro, or put together by enthusiasts? When it says "20th Century Fox has provided The Continuum with large versions of the character shots from X3", in the build-up to the film release, then quite evidently this is distribution as promotional material. Jheald 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Look, here they are on MovieWeb, too. Jheald 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Promotional material such as this needs proof that it comes from a press kit. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. howcheng {chat} 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Being copied in many websites doesn't makes it promotional. Do you have link to a site where the copyright holders states that anyone is welcome to use this image for promotional purposes? --Abu badali (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Given the information at http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg, I would say that using the Bruno Kirby case as some sort of precedent is suspect, at best. All that the Bruno Kirby case proves is that Wikipedians, specificially these two editors pressing for deletion, do not have what I would consider an adequate understanding of how promotional photos work or are distributed these days, and their continued requests for some hypothetical standard of "proof" seems to be baseless. JHeald is exactly right; these images are still legal fair use, and are still NFCC compliant, even if they didn't come from a "press kit." Jenolen speak it! 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Brunokirby precedent applies, because it was an image claimed to be promotional, but was deleted because the uploader couldn't provide reliable evidence (other than to his own criteria of evidence) that the copyright holder welcomed anyone to use that image for media purposes. Also, just like in this case, links to a lot of sites using the images is not considered a valid evidence that the copyright welcomes anyone to use the image in question. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Brunokirby image wasn't "claimed" to be promotional, as you put it, it was promotional, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the link I gave - including the evidence which was conveniently overlooked during its deletion case and deletion review - prove to any reasonable person that, in fact, it was a promotional image. If you persist in misrepresenting the facts, I will have to assume you are not acting in good faith. Jenolen speak it! 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, on the uploader's own criteria of evidence, the image "was promotional, beyond a shadow of a doubt". It was not the first time you disagreed with something in Wikipedia. Indeed, I haven't seen you doing anything other than that in the last 8 months. --Abu badali (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Brunokirby precedent applies, because it was an image claimed to be promotional, but was deleted because the uploader couldn't provide reliable evidence (other than to his own criteria of evidence) that the copyright holder welcomed anyone to use that image for media purposes. Also, just like in this case, links to a lot of sites using the images is not considered a valid evidence that the copyright welcomes anyone to use the image in question. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Given the information at http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg, I would say that using the Bruno Kirby case as some sort of precedent is suspect, at best. All that the Bruno Kirby case proves is that Wikipedians, specificially these two editors pressing for deletion, do not have what I would consider an adequate understanding of how promotional photos work or are distributed these days, and their continued requests for some hypothetical standard of "proof" seems to be baseless. JHeald is exactly right; these images are still legal fair use, and are still NFCC compliant, even if they didn't come from a "press kit." Jenolen speak it! 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you ave any evidence that this image was distributed by 20th Century Fox as promotional material? The link you provided points to a fansite. I don't see how that helps. --Abu badali (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't need such a link, and that is not the requirement. These images are from a standard set, sent out by the film company, in the build-up to their film release. That's pretty much the definition of a press kit or similar source. No, I don't have access to Fox's press site in the form it was two years ago. But the appearance, simultaneously, of the complete set, on two sites which specialise in tracking such promotional material is overwhelming circumstantial evidence. People have been hanged on less. Note also that the official film site is still distributing versions of these images for people to use on AIM, livejournal etc. Besides these images would still be legal fair use, and NFCC compliant, even if they hadn't come from a press kit. Jheald 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, provide the link to the "official film site" you mention. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- As yet a third source running these publicity images, here they are at IMDB, in a section called "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from Our Studio Friends". If you're still claiming these might not be from a standard studio publicity set, you're being absurd. Jheald 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, being in various websites doesn't implies that the copyright holder welcomes anyone to use these images. Sites like imdb.com. tv.yahoo.com. etc. may have any kind of deals with the copyright holder. Indeed, imdb explicitly says that images on their site are not to be used beyond personal use. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, being in various websites doesn't implies that the copyright holder welcomes anyone to use these images. - Which, of course, makes no sense at all, because the whole point of fair use is that you're going to use, fairly, a portion of copyrighted material. There can be no free equivalent picture of "Storm" created, so I'm not sure why you think a fair use requirement is that the copyright holder must "welcome" the use of their material. The attitude of the copyright holder is almost completely irrelevant to a fair use claim. Jenolen speak it! 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, since you are repeating your arguments, I can only point you to the (already familiar) discussion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. At this point, you should already have understood that the the copyright holder welcoming the distribution is not a requisite for fair use, but a requisite for an image to be considered promotional. The "no free equivalent" bit is also addresses in that discussions. --Abu badali (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, being in various websites doesn't implies that the copyright holder welcomes anyone to use these images. - Which, of course, makes no sense at all, because the whole point of fair use is that you're going to use, fairly, a portion of copyrighted material. There can be no free equivalent picture of "Storm" created, so I'm not sure why you think a fair use requirement is that the copyright holder must "welcome" the use of their material. The attitude of the copyright holder is almost completely irrelevant to a fair use claim. Jenolen speak it! 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, being in various websites doesn't implies that the copyright holder welcomes anyone to use these images. Sites like imdb.com. tv.yahoo.com. etc. may have any kind of deals with the copyright holder. Indeed, imdb explicitly says that images on their site are not to be used beyond personal use. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because we have better pictures we can use. I'm not sure about the discussion you guys are throwing back and forth about promotional or not, but it's not the kind of picture I would choose if I wanted to show someone what the character was. Especially considering such images need to be kept minimal, as in, try to use only one picture. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Choosing between different images of Storm from the film is an editorial decision to discuss on a talk page, not grounds for an IfD. And not very convincing even then, without presenting a specific image, and discussing how you think it better shows the character. Jheald 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image from photo agency Getty Images showing an athlete, used to illustrate the athlete's bio. Getty Images makes a living out of licensing such image for such uses. Abu badali (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by HarryPotterRocks714 (notify | contribs).
- Vandalism mock-up of Daniel Radcliffe for vandalizing his page. Douglasmtaylor 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Onomatopoeia (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free image from cnn showing an athlete posing with a piece of paper with the number 100. Apparently used to illustrate the information that he scored 100 points once. Abu badali (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No evidence this was released as promotional material. It's more likely an image created to impromove the official website (and not ours). Abu badali (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Photo appears to be a standard publicity photo, like others have been collected with it here (MovieNet non-Warner bros site), that have been issued to the media to accompany reviews. No evidence that this is being kept back as a single-website exclusive. Jheald 10:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The promotional status of the image can't be determined if it's not sourced.17Drew 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)- Sorry, corrected link: here. The MovieWeb site specialises in putting the contents of promotional kits online. See eg also the extensive official production notes here, and the competitions they run elsewhere on the site, giving away the press kit freebies. Elsewhere, the picture is also here at IMDB, about 4 screens through, under "On the set Off the set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends". I really don't see how there can be any doubt that this picture is from an official Warner Bros. publicity release. Jheald 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Switching to keep now that the image is sourced and IMDb classifies it as a publicity still. 17Drew 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't means that the copyright holder welcomes anyone to use this image. We don't know what kind of deals the copyright holder has with sites like imdb, tv.yahoo.com. etc.. We know, for sure, that they are not redistributors of material to the media (as they only allow their material to be user for personal purposes). --Abu badali (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per 17Drew. Dalejenkins 11:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free image used to illustrate the colors on a team's uniform (in 3 different articles). A free alternative should be used. Abu badali (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free image used to illustrate the colors of a uniform. A free alternative should be used. Abu badali (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by PharoahJay (notify | contribs).
- Table is copyright but presented as being the user's work — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Many academics retain the copyright to work they publish. If this user is, in fact, the author, then s/he can release it into the public domain, as stated. --Cheeser1 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tricky. Is this user really Dr Sonia Zakrzewski? Would she not anyway have had to assign the copyright to the journal publisher? I have a horrible feeling that it is the non-existent rights in the scan of the original that are what the user thinks he has GFDL'd. Therefore, recommend redraw from underlying data -- and rewrite caption. Jheald 11:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free image used to illustrate the colors of an uniform. A free alternative should be used. Abu badali (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No evidence tha the copyright holder "allows anyone to use this image for any purpose". Abu badali (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor, used to illustrate the information that he was once mugshoted (when arrested). Abu badali (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately I suggest asking George! I think he would approve.
- Legal balance on the four U.S. law fair-use criteria is strong, because the photo was originally taken for such an identifiably non-commercial purpose. I think there's general consensus here to allow mugshots in connection with discussions of arrests. So Keep. Jheald 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. Mugshots images are not necessary for the understanding of a discussion about an arrest. --Abu badali (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm on the fence on Abu's WP:NFCC#8 objection, but I do think the copyright holder should be clarified per WP:NFCC#10. And I think we need to confirm that it was published (as opposed to just leaked) to satisfy WP:NFCC#4 (unless there's some exception for this sort of public record). -- But|seriously|folks 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE: The above comment was added after the deletion. This image is now in deletion review at: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 24 --Abu badali (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Low photographic quality, so it's actually worse than having nothing. Looks somewhat like a screenshot.- Punkmorten 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, a screenshot would have been better quality. Probably taken at a match. Keep but hope to goodness somebody replaces it. Jheald 11:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Stated to be PD, but also stated to be taken from a site called "Iraqi Sports OnLine :: Media Portal" which says nothing about PD.- Punkmorten 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by User:Editor30 (notify | contribs).
- It is now an orphan since the page it was associated with has been speedily deleted. — Alan Liefting 09:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- unencyclopedic, looks like something that was taken from facebook to adorn a non-notable biography (see Mathew de gouveia, which I've listed for deletion as well. — dr.alf 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is an out-of-focus photograph of a domestic canary. Canaries are very common pets, so it would be easy to replace this photo with one which is in focus. —Psychonaut 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. It's a PD photo of an Andalusian Canary, and we have no other images of Andalusian Canaries at this time. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I cannot see the point of deleting the photo unless a better one is available. In any case, I may try to dig out a better one if given some time. --Asteriontalk 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and local version deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by PageantUpdater (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image showing a Miss being crowned, used to illustrate the information that she was crowned. Same case througly discussed in many nominations at June 18, June 29 deletion review, July 6, July 7, July 10, etc.. Abu badali (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is the type species of Miss crowning moments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as with many other editors who believe that these moments should be illustrated [4], [5], [6], [7]. There were also many who thought the June 18 afd was closed incorrectly [8], [9], [10], [11]. No matter what anyone says, however, I assume that this will be deleted, if so, it is vitally important that in some way the history of this be retained because I believe it is an important part of the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali.
- The history of deleted images is kept, and administrators can see deleted images (including why they were deleted). All ArbCom members are administrators. This discussion will not be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it was suggested somewhere that reducing the size and quality of the image would reduce it's commercial competition and thus make it more feasible under NFC 2. I just reduced the image size and over-did the reduction of quality but I'll go back and fix that. I am open to suggestions as to whether this helps the fair use claim. PageantUpdater 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment whatever the problem was on the other computer, it's not showing up here... the image looks fine. Anyway see what you think... PageantUpdater 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The image looks fine to me. It unquestionably passes NFCC #3. But it's #2 and #8 that are in contention. (I personally think it passes those as well.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment whatever the problem was on the other computer, it's not showing up here... the image looks fine. Anyway see what you think... PageantUpdater 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Both #2 and #8 are a problem, but mainly #8. Her crowning is discussed, and the crown itself is discussed in the article, but nothing in that discussion requires an illustration. (The article is poorer without some idea what she looks like, but we all know we can't use a copyrighted image for that purpose.) Plus it's worth pointing out the precedent that all these previous images used in exactly the same way this one was used in were also deleted. Mangojuicetalk 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase reader's understanding in a way words cannot. The article in which it is used contains no commentary in regards to this image, and the current fair use rationale is inadequate besides. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orhpaned image claimed to be taken by User:Linuxbeak, but in fact uploaded by User:gibs0n and is a vandalistic photoshop of Image:Schenck.jpg. Since the image is neither what it claims to be, and is intended as vandalism, it should be deleted. --OuroborosCobra 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by KTM Jared 683 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned personal picture, Unencyclopedic - digitally manipulated BigrTex 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by KTM Jared 683 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned personal picture, Unencyclopedic - digitally manipulated BigrTex 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by KTM Jared 683 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned personal picture, Unencyclopedic - digitally manipulated BigrTex 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free hockey image, used decoratively – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a non-free image, yes -- but irreplaceable as the focal point was the subject at a past championship. I contend that it is not used as decoration, but to illustrate an important moment in both teams history as they competed for the National championship. DMighton 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yet that important moment is not discussed in the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- ...but it will be... I've been focusing mostly on tabulating stats and format and that is why it is still a stub article, and the team history has not been filled yet (which is the next step). But I'll be fixing that hopefully tomorrow when I am back from "wedding planning", I would do it right now but I am not at home where my records are. DMighton 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yet that important moment is not discussed in the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a non-free image, yes -- but irreplaceable as the focal point was the subject at a past championship. I contend that it is not used as decoration, but to illustrate an important moment in both teams history as they competed for the National championship. DMighton 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: In order to use a non-free image of an event, two things are needed. One: the event must be significant in the article, usually meaning that the event is the primary focus of a major section of the article. Two: the image must show some encyclopedic aspect of the event that words alone cannot. I personally don't know whether this image provides more encyclopedic content than the words "[Player name] and [player name] faced off in the [team] vs. [team] championship match." Also, if the article does not support this image at the time this nomination is decided, the image should be deleted, but it can be easily restored if the article is changed such that the image would be appropriate. Just contact me, or list the image on Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- After a day of thought. My time is focused on other things at the moment. I really have no current use for the image in hindsight, so as the uploader I endorse the deletion. DMighton 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ad, used (in my opinion) decoratively – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by LiamMcConville (notify | contribs).
- Used decoratively – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by ShampooCell (notify | contribs).
- Video still, used only in articles that don't talk about the video – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Khaosworks (notify | contribs).
- No evidence this was release to be used as promotional material by third parties. The source, Doctor Who Magazine, is not a press kit. A screenshot would be a safer bet for illustrating this fictional character. Abu badali (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version, which is a screenshot. That should resolve the issue. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy close and delete only the older version - Great job, Khaosworks. --Abu badali (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version, which is a screenshot. That should resolve the issue. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep screenshot version/speedy close per Abu badali. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted older version -Nv8200p talk 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dbalderzak (notify | contribs).
- Comes from a government site, but per [12] all material on the site is copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the claim by remember.gov to be in error as the U.S. government sent representatives to the crash site and they took pictures on government time at government expense. Therefore that photograph likely has no copyright. The only way to ascertain that is to write to remember.gov and ask for the source of that picture. It appears to be an Army photo. I believe this photo should not be deleted. U.S. gov can not claim copyright.Skywriter 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the government CAN claim copyright on things on which the copyright was transferred to it. If the photo in question was taken by a federal employee, then you're right and it would not be copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The "White House Commission on Remembrance" was established December 28, 2000 (see No Greater Love and [13] where it is identified as "White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance"). It cannot have taken this photo. -Nard 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SuperJumbo (notify | contribs).
- Non-free press agency (Associated Press) photo used only for depiction of its subject. Example of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5 and violates WP:NFCC #2. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I concur... As a substitute: Can we use these pictures in concordance with the law (the pictures r presented on the web site of the fire department of Owinger; such departments r usually non profit organizations and in this case they do not make any claims about copyrights; or should I just upload a picture and wait, if it is deleted?)? --Homer Landskirty 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image is a photoshopped book cover being used solely to illustrate living actors. The FU rationale refers to the use of the image not limiting the commercial distribution of the series or DVDs, but makes no mention of the book. Furthermore, the rationale states outright that is being used for illustration, rather than critical commentary. — Brad 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Use of a standard publicity shot in this context to show all of the characters could be argued to be part of the critical commentary, and would normally be regarded as acceptable for WP. (Note that critical commentary has a particular meaning in U.S. law, meaning -more or less- serious and informed discussion. It does not imply any element of literary criticism). What is nasty about this case is the way the image has been sourced from a book-cover, and then doctored to remove any trace of that source. If the image were re-created from a clean publicity photo, IMO that would be acceptable. Jheald 12:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble is that it isn't being used for serious and informed discussion at all. Currently (2007-07-21) it is referred to only in the caption, which says "Promotional shot of Friends' cast during its tenth and final season". User:Jheald says it would be acceptable if it were recreated from a clean publicity photo but what improvements would that add to the article? It is merely decoration and if any image is to be added to that section it would be more appropriate to have a screenshot of an important moment from the season. Brad 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned pokemon image licensed as {{GFDL}} (Copyright violation?), Absent uploader BigrTex 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - fan art? BigrTex 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - watermark BigrTex 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic fan art BigrTex 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned screenshot, Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation BigrTex 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation BigrTex 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Metaphysical85 (notify | contribs).
- No longer relevant to anything. — Hornetman16 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't really understand this nomination. It is still relevant to the Survivor Series 2005 article, as well as the generic Survivor Series article. I think it really adds something to each article to show what the set looked like. More discussion on this topic can be seen at the WP:PW talk page HERE. Nikki311 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- It violates WP:FU as it a copyrighted set and not free-use.--Hornetman16 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It adds to the articles (as mentioned by Nikki above), and I don't see how a private photograph whose author released it for free use can be a violation of WP:FU. - T-75|talk|contribs 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As previously mentioned, image is at home in Survivor Series and Survivor Series 2005 articles. No reason why this picture should be removed. --SteelersFan UK06 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- It violates WP:FU as it a copyrighted set and not free-use. It's not his place to release it.--Hornetman16 06:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment then it should be re-labelled under proper fair use (as no other free use image would exist, with it being a set which someone owns) rationale for use on those articles (which is relevant) and Kept appropriately. --SteelersFan UK06 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't think it right BUT, maybe I should have nominated for a copyright check instead.--Hornetman16 06:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, everyone makes mistakes. --SteelersFan UK06 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment then it should be re-labelled under proper fair use (as no other free use image would exist, with it being a set which someone owns) rationale for use on those articles (which is relevant) and Kept appropriately. --SteelersFan UK06 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- It violates WP:FU as it a copyrighted set and not free-use. It's not his place to release it.--Hornetman16 06:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, at the moment the page for the picture says free use, may be it should say fair use, either way the copyright issue does not justify its deletion, especially as the rationale for deleting it was "it has been deleted 3 times", which at the time was not correct, it had been deleted once by a bot. Darrenhusted 12:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the nominator is arguing that the underlying copyright means that the image is not free. But the words "Survivor series" is not enough material to be eligible for copyright, and the font is not copyrightable, so there are no problems with releasing this image into the public domain, as the uploader has done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to end this with the consenssus to KEEP.--Hornetman16 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I take it that means Hornetman16 has withdrawn his nomination. Darrenhusted 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Judy Garland pics
[edit]There exists a free Judy Garland pic at Image:Judy Garland in A Star is Born trailer.jpg. (I am not nominating that pic for deletion.) Thus we cannot use a non-free pic to show what the actress looked like. The following non-free pics are used in the Judy Garland page, but I don't believe any of them pass our non-free content criteria.
- Image:Teenagejudygarland mgmpublicitystill2.jpg - A photo of her as a child, used in the "childhood" section to show that she was indeed a child at one time, and to show what she looked like as a child
- Image:Judygarland mickeyrooney louisbmayer mgmpublicitystill2.jpg - a photograph of her with Mickey Rooney and Louis B. Mayer, in a situation not mentioned in the article
- Image:Judy Garland publ.jpg - a photo of her as a teenager, merely showing what she looked like then
- Image:Awomanshomecompanio march1945 judygarland famag.jpg - a magazine photo of her older, used to show what she looked like
- Image:Judygarland astarisborn warnerbros publicitystill 1954.jpg - a photo of her in 1954, showing only what she looked like
- Image:Judygarland publicitystill 2.jpg - a photo of her in her early 40s, showing that she didn't look so good.
I don't think any of these uses is acceptable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as I linked in the fair use rationale (with the exception of two), these images are publicity photos released by MGM to promote Judy Garland, and as for the Wizard of Oz photo - to promote Judy Garland and her upcoming film. The Star is Born publicity photo was released to the media to promote her then upcoming film, A Star is Born. The only two exceptions being the Judy Garland fan magazine and the photo of her from the 1960's. The latter I received permission from the Judy Garland database [14], but its origin is questionable. As for the fan magazine, I am not certain what rules fall under that as well. But the following were released as publicity photos by MGM to promote Judy Garland:
- Teenagejudygarland mgmpublicitystill2.jpg
- Judygarland mickeyrooney louisbmayer mgmpublicitystill2.jpg
- Judy Garland publ.jpg
- The following was released by Warner as part of the press kit for their film "A Star Is Born"
- Judygarland astarisborn warnerbros publicitystill 1954.jpg
- - uploaded by DepartedUser (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Low quality - blurry BigrTex 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, no way to confirm that the original photo isn't under copyright, Obsolete (Image:Acme klein bottle.jpg is used on article and resides at commons) BigrTex 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex Austin (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - likely uploaded for Directron or Directron.com, both now deleted as advertising BigrTex 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex Austin (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - likely uploaded for Directron or Directron.com, both now deleted as advertising BigrTex 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex Austin (notify | contribs).
- Absent uploader, Orphaned - likely uploaded for Directron or Directron.com, both now deleted as advertising BigrTex 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex Austin (notify | contribs).
- Absent uploader, Orphaned - likely uploaded for Directron or Directron.com, both now deleted as advertising BigrTex 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex Austin (notify | contribs).
- Absent uploader, Orphaned - likely uploaded for Directron or Directron.com, both now deleted as advertising BigrTex 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Washingtonsarlanga (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, not enough context to establish encyclopedic value, too small to make out detail BigrTex 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Washingtonsarlanga (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, not enough context to establish encyclopedic value, too small to make out detail BigrTex 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Washingtonsarlanga (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to establish encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Washingtonsarlanga (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to establish encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Washingtonsarlanga (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned albumcover, Absent uploader, too small to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jim_roebuck (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only contribution), Unencyclopedic self-pic BigrTex 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only contribution), Unencyclopedic - no context & watermarking BigrTex 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by DitherShadow (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Unencyclopedic BigrTex 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by DitherShadow (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned screenshot(?), Absent uploader BigrTex 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan since article was speedily deleted. — Hu 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary non-notable non-free picture from a media company being used to illustrate the event depicted on the picture (not that this is necessary for the understanding of the text) Abu badali (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary non-notable non-free picture from a media company being used to illustrate the event depicted on the picture (not that this is necessary for the understanding of the text) Abu badali (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Nectarflowed (notify | contribs).
- probable copyright violation; uploader claims fair use. Skywriter 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Next time, use {{subst:rfu}} for this case. howcheng {chat} 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
