Image talk:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image will be kept by decision at DRV

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

This is compatible with Wikipedia's fair use criteria because:

  • Anonymous uses this image most often to identify itself. There is no other image that would fulfill this roll. Removing it would seriously detract from the article.
  • The image has never been used commercially. By using it here, we're not cutting into anyone's profits.
  • Many of the recent news reports about Anonymous use this image without regard for copyright. The public knows it and the media are unconcerned about copyright.
  • This image uniquely identifies Anonymous. Not only is the image often used by them, the text is a perfect example of their dark humor.
  • The image is scaled down from the original (available on ED, which I can't link).

It would be impossible to get the copyright holder's permission anyway, since they are (obviously) anonymous.--Theymos (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're wanting to display Anonymous, why not use one of the protest photos? Will (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you search youtube for "anonymous", most relevant videos include this image. On Encyclopedia Dramatica's Anonymous article, a variation of this image occurs 8 times, out of 40 images. Wikichan's book, "The Well Cultured Anonymous," uses this image on its cover image. It's also used in many news sources.
This image is like a logo for Anonymous. There is no other image that could replace it completely.--Theymos (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They're still living people though. You can't use a promo photo of a band, for instance, if you wanted to display them. You need a free image. Same rules apply here. Will (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous is not "living people." It's a descriptor, a cultural term. This image has no ownership, nor is it replaceable. It is the representation of the culture being described in the article, and is a vital contribution to the article's ability to describe the nature of that culture. Bubbaprog (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep: The image is effectively a logo, which means we should be able to use it on a Fair Use basis as we do with other logos. The Fair Use rationale at Image:Labour.svg, for example, would appear to be appropriate for this image as well. -- Hux (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to do this wikipedia thing, i am here to tell you a few things, first, that was made with the GIMP, i remember seeing the original posting on 4chan as a gif with "made with the gimp" in the data, it was not generated at despair.com as there is no watermark. and using real life pictures is a not desirable, the same way you wouldn't use a photograph of a band's fans in place of the actual members, as "anonymous" in the mass sense only exists on the internet only an image from that domain will do. do i type the date? i'm not sure. i'm used to imageboards, not wikis. 20:55, 24 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.255.241 (talk)

I believe that every article needs to have a photo. When writing Anonymous (group), this image was the first to come to mind, so I added it. The single difficulty with this image is that the author may never be known. I personally believe that the image was intended to be used without concern over copyright, but that circumstance prevented the establishment of license or release into the public domain. Having no means to identify the author, I did the best I could in describing the image. I do not believe there is another image of this quality that can replace it. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about the despair inc thing

this was not created by despair inc nor is it owned by them, the only part they had in it was the use of their demotivator generator (several of which exist on other web sites) NekrosKoma (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted, again

After orphaning. Fair use only applied to logos if they are property of / licenesed to the organization that is using them. Can this be shown? — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The way we work is that everything we create is open for everyone to do whatever they want with. It's a very important part of our culture. --Janusofzeal (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion tags

This is becoming downright disruptive.

WP:SPEEDY states: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The image's disqualification under WP:NFCC#10a was already discussed and contested at the review, making it ineligible for speedy deletion. Ayla (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you kindly add the copyright source to the image description page? I was unable to find it. ➪HiDrNick! 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's given under Other information: "Image source link: [1] post 52888075 (about 1/4 the way down the page)." Ayla (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's where the image is found on the Internet. What we need to know is who owns the copyright to the image. Can you provide that information? ➪HiDrNick! 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From the closure of the deletion review:

"No consensus to overturn. I would like to assume good faith, but I sense there is a large undercurrent in this debate that is not actually about our NFCC policy. There were a number of arguments on both sides of the debate that seemed to be based on misunderstandings of copyright law and/or our NFCC policy. Firstly anonymous works are copyrighted. This is indisputable. It is arguable if they can be placed in the public domain or not, but there is no way to verify if Anonymous (notice capital "A") placed this work into the public domain. NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous). This leaves the debate on if this image is replaceable. I see no consensus on this point. – IronGargoyle"

Emphasis added. Ayla (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So... no? ➪HiDrNick! 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
From above: WP:SPEEDY states: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The image's disqualification under WP:NFCC#10a was already discussed and contested at the review, making it ineligible for speedy deletion.
Why can't you wait for the outcome of the ongoing review? If it's delete, then you could delete the image without needing any speedy deletion tag. If it's keep, then speedy deletion would be in violation of the above clause. I can't make it clearer than this. Ayla (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to see I7 and I9 as part of the copyright violation clause (as it's a copyright violation unless you can make a valid claim for fair use). If that weren't the case, we would not be able to delete images that were kept at IFD before we needed rationales. Will (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It says "newly discovered copyright infringements" (my emphasis). Ayla (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record: second deletion review closed as overturn deletion and keep image. Ayla (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected

Change the logo boilerplate to poster - seriously, this image isn't a logo by any stretch of the imagination. The inner image is, but not the whole image. Will (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The inner image is a logo, and the outer image is just a bit of black and some text which I don't believe can be copyrighted. Therefore, the only copyright information should be about the logo. The poster boilerplate isn't appropriate here, anyway, that's for band and movie posters.--Theymos (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't have half of the work copyrighted - you make a new work if you put a logo with text, under its own copyright. The template {{non-free poster}} is used for anything, from movie to political posters. But trust me - it'll have a better chance for fair use as a poster than a logo. Will (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit protected denied per being kept at DRV. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Anonymous ring logo.gif

Non-free / fair use media rationale - non-free logo for Anonymous (group)
Description

This is a logo for Anonymous (group).
Source

The logo is from the Insurgency Wiki, accessible at http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Image:Blacksuitwring.gif. The logo (or a close derivative) is also used as the site logo for the Anonymous Lobby Against Scientology Campaign and Anonymous Toronto wikis.
Article

Anonymous (group)
Portion used

The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image.
Low resolution?

The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution.
Purpose of use

The image is used to identify the Internet-based group Anonymous, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the group, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the group, and illustrate the group's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
Replaceable?

Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.
Other information Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. During the IFD discussion, first deletion review, and second deletion review for Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg (talk), it was asserted that the copyright holder of these logos is either Anonymous (the group) or anonymous (an undisclosed individual). This logo was uploaded by Gouki to the Insurgency Wiki, which states that all contributions must be self-authored or "copied from a public domain or similar free resource". Thus, it should be assumed that Gouki is the creator of the image, or obtained it as free content.