Image talk:Airplane24.png

KEEP - Violations of WP:FUC 1,2,3 and 8 have been suggested as reasons for eliminating these images. All are invalid:

WP:FUC #1 - No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information...

These images are absolutely not in violation of this criterion. As a matter of fact, there is no way that any image could violate this criterion less! These images, when reconstructed, consist of a string of binary digits, not one of which can be changed without destroying its status as a standard test image. This may be difficult to understand - when this image is downloaded, it is not a digitized version of a test image, it is the test image. The sequence of binary digits that compose the image are the same sequence of binary digits that were used by various researchers in their image processing studies and then reported in the image processing literature.

WP:FUC #2 - The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media...

not in violation These images are digitized, reduced in size scans of copyrighted or formerly copyrighted materials. They in no way compete with the original. It is important to realize that it is not the subject matter which is important, it is the variations in shading, fine detail, and sharp edges that are important. In other words another scan of the same person or animal or scene may not include these important image-processing details. Furthermore, these images are used in image processing literature. In order to compare one's own results to that of the literature requires precisely the same digital image. Also, these images are freely availiable from any number of standard test image repositories.

WP:FUC #3 - The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

Again, not in violation - one will not serve the purpose adequately. These images are not interchangeable - if one is used in the literature, then another one cannot be tested and compared to it. There are no high or low resolution versions. Each image is unique down to the last binary digit.

WP:FUC #8 - The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

Again, not in violation. The subject of the article is "standard test images". These are standard test images. Not reproductions, not thumbnails, these are the very images that are used in the literature, bit by digital bit. The images could not be less in violation of this criterion!

These images are not a photo montage any more than a mathematical equation is a "math symbol montage". In light of the above discussion, this objection is invalid as well. PAR 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Criterion 1 & 2, 8: this statement is self-contradictory; the images are a "string of binary digits" which cannot be replaced, yet they have been reduced in resolution in order to avoid displacing any market role for the original media. Also, the possibility that a image could be produced in the future and released under a free license cannot be ruled out.
• Criterion 3 & 8: the article text on Standard test image is a stub and does not support the use of any single fair use image at the present time, much less a gallery (compare with the article Lenna).
• Photo montage: a math expression cannot be copyrighted, so the comparison is invalid. Also photo montages relates to the use of the images in the article, not the images themselves.--Oden 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I have taken several signal processing classes (including a graduate level digital image processing (DIP) class) and I recognize many of these images. They are unique, specific images used throughout DIP classes, literature, books, and journal articles. It is their ubiquity that makes that unreplaceable. From a technical standpoint, one image is not replaceable for another. While reduced for wikipedia, the images are known throughout the field and I have seen them used to compare different algorithms to previously published algorithms. (Heck, I have implemented algorithms and used these exact images to draw comparisons myself!) It is impossible to replace these images with fair use images because any other image renders the comparison moot (they must be bit-for-bit equal for any conherent/sane comparison to be made) and this is why they are ubiquitous.

I have no desire to make cheap shots or demean another wikipedian, but Oden's — for a lack of a better word — "crusade" against these images and his refusal to see there is no free replacement indicates to me his lack of knowledge of the image processing field. I would, however, add that Oden removed these images from standard test image and did not mention that here per the instructions for IFD.

I will say that I would like to see the article expanded with one image per section and each section explaining what makes its respective image a standard image. What features of the image make it desirable over others. Where has it been used and by whom (IOW: references). Etc. However, this can't be done when attention must be paid to a deletion process.

Also the cicada image is missing from the list of standard images. :) Cburnett 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Before you first touched it on 12 January, the article Standard test image (including images) was self-explanatory. What, exactly, about those images is not fair use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffGent (talk • contribs).

• Keep, per RAR. Thousands of companies (from Fortune-100 to small shops) routinely use this collection of images in their work and publish it in hundreds of thousands of publications. I also believe there were arrangments with the copyright owners over releasing the images into public domain. At any case it is clearily an exfeptional case. Alex Bakharev 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The images are the subject of the article, and freely and widely distributed; they need to be identified to be talked about or mentioned; this if fair use. They are already substially reduced versions of any possibly copyrighted originals, but they are used as themselves, not as representations of or alternatives to those originals. There is no chance that their use here will interfere with any sales or other proprietary interest in the originals. Dicklyon 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the use of the template {{ifd}}, there is no requirement to notify anyone else but the uploader (instructions).
• The images were removed from the article per WP:FUC since they fail the fair use criteria and were used in a manner which is not permitted by WP:IUP.
• The deletion process is no excuse for abstaining from improving an article. The argument could even be made that deleting the images makes room for more text as well as free images. The article has roughly the same amount of text since it was first created (first edit). It is a stub with fourteen (14) fair use images. We usually don't allow one...
• Regarding the use of images in a specific article, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used for reference and not a textbook on any subject. These images may be ubiquitous in another context, but here they are not.
• Last of all, this is not a straw poll. Voting is evil! :-) --Oden 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: A standard test image could be created (by a university department for instance) and released under a free license. All we need is one, to illustrate the article. --Oden 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? Someone just can't "make another painting" and call it a Picasso. Cburnett 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I feel that these should either be reduced in resolution by a small amount or slightly cropped or something like that in order to deliberately prevent anyone from using these in place of the original test images. If we provide perfect full resolution versions of all of them, then we are at definite risk of removing commercial value from the original owners. If, however, we change the images in some small-but-not-reversible way then they would become utterly useless as actual test images - but still retain plenty of their original character in order that we may discuss them properly. Another issue here is that the group who made these test images in the first place lived in an age before copyright infringement was very much enforced or worried about. The classic Lenna image was simply scanned from a Playboy magazine - and the sources of the other images may by now have been quite forgotten. So I think cropping the images by (say) 1% would suffice to make it very clear that we intend no commercial violation - yet not in any way impair our ability to describe the images. It would be quite utterly essential that we make it clear that we did this and that we are not a repository of these images in order that some unsuspecting person doesn't try to actually use the images as downloaded from here as actual standard test images. SteveBaker 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was PAR's intent that the images as downloaded from here COULD be usable as actual standard test images. I fully support that intent. I think that it is important for the scientific community to have these images available in as many places as possible, and that each one is notable for its use as a standard test image. -- Jeff G. 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I understand that, and I'd also like to see the full image set here. But my concern is that if the copyright holder ever wished to sell these images (you can already buy them on CD-ROM from the owner - so that's not at all unreasonable) then the presence of the full image suite here on Wikipedia could most definitely be construed to be impinging on the commercial value of the images to the owner. That would immediately disqualify our right to use them under 'fair use'. Since I'd prefer to have solid grounds for fair use of reduced resolution images than to act as a "mirror/repository" for the full resolution versions (which I believe is also explicitly one of the things Wikipedia is not). Faced with such a choice - I therefore suggest keeping only reduced resolution or otherwise "damaged" versions. Having said that, it has to be mentioned that these images have been circulated and given away for free online (even by the owners) for many, many years without any kind of statement of license, ownership, usage restrictions or copyrights - and in many cases, the current "owners" may have violated other people's copyrights to obtain the images in the first place. Such was definitely the case with the Lenna test image for example. These are muddy waters. SteveBaker 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution seems obvious to me: reduced images for copyrighted stuff (on en:), full images for copylefted stuff (on commons:). Cburnett 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also note to anyone interested that after being unblocked, User:Oden tagged each image as candidate for speedy delete in full knowledge that he himself put them up for IFD. All were removed by User:Feydey. I honestly have never heard of anyone nominating images, then getting zero support, and then put them up for speedy deletion. I'm trying to assume good faith on his part, but I don't think that's fair to the whole process. Cburnett 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Each day, it gets harder and harder to assume good faith on the part of User:Oden. -- Jeff G. 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note, Oden has proclaimed retirement from WP (over this whole issue, I'm sure). Cburnett 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That proclamation has now been rescinded, less than three days later (its retirement lasted from 13:31 on the 15th to 12:25 on the 18th (UTC)) - please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOden&diff=101543724&oldid=101346421 for details and User talk:Oden/Archive_3 for the discussion User:Oden had User:Werdnabot archive aggressively. -- Jeff G. 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what was going on, the retirement has now (as of 21:51 UTC) moved from the redirected User talk page User talk:Oden to the real User page User:Oden. -- Jeff G. 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)