Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Orsenigowithhitler.jpg

Image:Orsenigowithhitler.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Savidan (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image showing a Pontiff and a Fuher meeting. It's used to illustrate the information that they once met, the concept of diplomatic corps and of courtesy call. In none of these cases it seems to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed free free text or images. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. It shows the future papal nuncio to Germany meeting with Hitler. Orsenigo was the Vatican nuncio to Germany for the entirity of World War II, and thus an image of him meeting with the German head of state is particularly relevant. No free equivalent exists of these two leaders. I have removed it from the articles on "diplomatic corps" and "curteousy call", where a free equivalent likely could be found, but it adds a lot to the Pope Pius XII article, illustrating a very notable portion of Pius XII's pontificate: diplomacy with Germany. Savidan 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But how does this non-free image helps in the understanding of the discussion about Pius XII's diplomacy with Germany? --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is for the reader looking at the image to determine. I think it illustrates the formality and also the collegiality of the diplomatic relationship, but other interpretations are possible. The clothes they're wearing, the way the diplomats are arranged, their expresions, etc: those are things only an image can convey. Savidan 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Iconic photograph has been published widely, only known image of them meeting, non replaceable. Bleh999 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  This specific image is replaceable by text. (NO, I don't believe that every image is replabeable by text, but this one doesn't add any new information to the text.) --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Important historical photograph of a major event. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  Contest: Still, it doesn't add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed free free text. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree with WikipedianProlific, and in additon the deletion would imply IMHO trying to deny the event happened. Let us not re-write history but preserve the truth. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  Nonsense. We can still discuss the event without the use of non-free material. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The text "Pius XII met with Hitler" does not need an image to be understood. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Howcheng. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong keephistorical event Preetikapoor0 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Image was deleted. Violated WP:NFCC#8 & #10a. This image was not of the Pope and there was no discussion of the particular incident depicted in the article. There was not an adequate source. The link referenced offered no information on the copyright holder. -Nv8200p talk 01:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Konkordat.jpg

Image:Konkordat.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Eloquence (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image showing various people singing a concordat, used to illustrate the existence of the concordat itself. It doesn't seem to help on the understanding of the topic. Also, there's no information about the author and/or copyright holder. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The copyright holder is unknown. I have added the source information for the image. This image is one of the best examples of why fair use images are necessary on Wikipedia, being a unique historical photograph of an important historical event. It is used to illustrate the object in question (the concordat and its signatories) and conveys important information about how it was signed (the small details like the arrangement of the inkwells and positions of the various important persons (several of whom have articles). The maxim "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true in this case. Savidan 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, a thousand words are worth a non-free picture. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not 1000 words of original research. Waste your time going after the TV screenshots, not the unique historical images. Savidan 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep unrepeatable historic event, words alone cannot convey the full meaning of the work. -N 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The picture is not necessary to understanding the text. You might have a better argument if things like the placement of the inkwells etc was significant in some way. But the larger problem is that the copyright holder is unknown. We absolutely cannot use non-free images without knowing who the copyright holder is. There is no way around that. howcheng {chat} 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates NFCC #8 – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep / Further research. I think the image does add significantly to understanding the topic of the article. First consider the significance of the event. According to the article: "There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world... At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad". This is the image people around the world saw in their newspapers expressing that confidence. The propaganda value of this image was such that it was issued as a postcard by the National-Kalender-Verlag (National Calendar Publishing House) in Hamburg [1]. This is an important image, which shows how the event was presented around the world, and adds significantly to the understanding the reader derives from the article.

However, even if use fits the policy criteria of desirability, we need to assess how it stands legally. And that's where the identity of the copyright holder comes in. I don't agree with User:Howcheng that we absolutely cannot use non-free images if we don't know precisely who the copyright holder is. Instead we need to use common sense. We need to consider the balance of probability as to who is likely to be the copyright holder, paying particular attention to any less favourable cases. In this case, this is clearly an official photograph, so the original copyright holder is likely to have been the 1933 German government and/or its official news agency. It's not clear who would have inherited that after 1945. But there is a strong possibility that this image may be Public Domain in the United States - if it was originally published in the U.S. within 30 days of its appearance in Germany (as it probably was, in newspapers), and if the copyright was not renewed in 1961 (and who would claim the ownership - the Bundesrepublik? the DDR?), then I believe that would make it {{PD-US}}, which is good enough for en-wikipedia. Even if it were still in copyright and had an active licensor, I think it would still qualify for fair use.

I note the German Historical Museum (DHM), who hold the postcard above, has a copyright enquiry desk [2]. Personally, I think we could sign the image off for fair use on the basis of what we already know; but if people really thought it was necessary, perhaps we could find somebody from de.wikipedia to find out the exact position for us. Jheald 01:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored a number of copyrights to effectively be life + 70, even they had fallen out of copyright prior to that. So the loophole you're trying to squeeze through (published between 1923 and 1977 and in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996) is effectively closed because this photo is likely NOT public domain in the home country anymore. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

However, a number of conditions have to be met for that Act to apply -- see note 9 on page from Cornell. The Act only applies if the following conditions are met: (i) One of the authors of the work had to be a non-US citizen or resident, and (ii) the work could not have been published in the US within 30 days after its publication abroad, and (iii) the work needed to still be in copyright in the country of publication.

Here, I suspect condition (ii) is unlikely to have been the case. Jheald 17:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? If this photo is such an important image as so claimed here, why wouldn't it have been published in the US at the time? howcheng {chat} 18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got the argument the wrong way round. Basically, if the work was published in the U.S. within 30 days, then U.S. rules apply, not the GATT rules.[3] I'm arguing that in this case that is likely. Jheald 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will consult User:Lupo who is very knowledgeable about the URAA and GATT. howcheng {chat} 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Jheald is right, see 17 USC 104A(h)(6)(D). A work that was published in the U.S. within 30 days from the original publication in the foreign source country (i.e., that was "simultaneously" published in the U.S.) is, in accordance with the Berne Convention, not a "foreign work": it has both the foreign country and the U.S. as its source countries, and thus is considered (also) a U.S. work and hence is not covered by the URAA. Foreign works that were published in the U.S., but only after more than 30 days after the original foreign publication, are covered by the URAA. (BTW, the U.S. term for pre-1978 publications is 95 years from the publication, not 70 years p.m.a.) I do not know whether this 30-days-rule can be applied to news photos, which are published all over the world within days. They'd have many source countries, and be copyrighted in each of them according to the national legislation. I don't know if that's the case. Lupo 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. So the key is to find out if it was published in the U.S. sometime between July 20 and August 18, 1933. I agree it's very likely that that happened. I don't suppose anyone is willing to look at New York Times front pages during this time on microfiche at a research library or something to confirm? :) howcheng {chat} 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As a TimeSelect subscriber I looked at the pdfs of the original articles. No images accompanied them. I am actually dubious this picture was contemporaneously published in the US... it doesn't appear in the LoC or NARA or Corbis. Most of the websites using it seem to be Christian faiths that slam the Catholic Church for obscure apocalyptic reasons (prophecies that some Christian churches would be making deals with the worldly authorities). -Nard 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Original articles of which newspapers? Jheald 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The NYT, as requested. I don't see why this can't be treated as anonymous work, which would be protected for 70 years and then be PD under German law -Nard 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because "anonymous work" is not the same as "I don't know who the copyright holder is". --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted. This image is reasonably believed to be in the public domain. We do not know for sure whether it is PD or not, and our guidelines do not tell us "images must be assumed to be copyrighted if not proven to be PD", so I think it's up to the weight of the evidence and the consensus of editors. In this case, I don't see consensus that the image is copyrighted, and it's obvious that many people believe in good faith that the image is PD. If evidence surfaces that there is in fact a copyright holder, then the image should be renominated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Piusxiiromebombing.jpg

Image:Piusxiiromebombing.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Savidan (notify | contribs).

• Uploaded as PD-Italy, but it's not PD in the U.S.. Description says it's only 20 years old. Abu badali ^(talk) 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The only known image of the first time a pope ventured outisde Vatican City since 1870. I'd say thats a unique historical image. Used on the cover of The Lonely Cold War of Pius XII, etc. Savidan 05:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that this could be used in accordance to WP:NFCC, I believe that it fails #8. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This image, as presented on the cover of Kent's book and elsewhere, is important is shaping how people viewed the first departure of the pope from Vatican City since 1870. There appears to be no objective method to your denigrating the importance of this image. There's no free alternative. It's been widely used in the context of Pope Pius XII. That should be enough for its omission to decrease the value of the article to the end user. Savidan 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understood your argument above. In "is important is shaping...", did you mean "is important in shaping..."? Even assuming so, I'm still confused. Are you saying that this specific image shaped how people viewed the first departure of the pope...? Does the article discusses this? I don't mean a discussion about the departure. I mean a discussion about how this image shaped the popular view of this departure. If the articles contains such discussion (and this discussion is properly sourced and void of original research) than I would withdraw the nomination (and write a valid fair use rationale myself!).

But if I completely misunderstood your point, please let me know. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not necessary to understanding the text. howcheng {chat} 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates NFCC #8, and not even a good image, at that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep / Further research. Probably {{PD-US}} unless (i) published in the U.S. within 30 days of Italian publication; and (ii) marked with a copyright notice at that time; and (iii) that copyright was renewed in 1969. Jheald 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyrights to life + 70, even for works that had fallen out of copyright in their home countries prior to that (I know, it totally sucks). howcheng {chat} 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • See page from Cornell, specifically "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities", 1923-1977, "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". Jheald 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Also as above, what makes you think this photo, which Savidan claims to be one of the most widely circulated photos of the Pius XII, wasn't published in the U.S. within 30 days of its publication in its home country? howcheng {chat} 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, only put down half the argument. (Must be getting very dozy this evening). If it wasn't published in the U.S. in 30 days, then IT rules apply --> Public Domain. But if it was published in the U.S. within 30 days, then U.S. rules apply. --> Image must have been marked copyright, and that copyright must have been renewed, if image is still to be in copyright. Jheald 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I will consult User:Lupo who is very knowledgeable about the URAA and GATT. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Image was deleted Fails WP:NFCC#8 as a copyrighted image. If it can be determined the image is in the public domain in the U.S., the image could be re-uploaded -Nv8200p talk 01:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:S.C.I.F.I._World.PNG

Image:S.C.I.F.I._World.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DoctorWho42 (notify | contribs).

• I think this non-free image is purely decorative and doesn't provide information that words alone couldn't. Am I right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. The poster makes the concept of the different "lands" much easier to understand. With just text and no image I found the concept bizzare and incomprehensible. But with the image, it's much more obvious. So Keep, on the basis that without it I didn't understand the main concept of the idea. Jheald 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:SP_Golden_Rocket_Ad.jpg

Image:SP_Golden_Rocket_Ad.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hellbus (notify | contribs).

• Full-page ad, used decoratively – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not intended as decoration, but rather to help show how the train was heavily promoted and yet never actually entered service. Image description page has been updated with improved fair use rationale. Hellbus 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. I'm going to rule this as {{PD-Pre1978}}. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Killian_memos_MSWord_animated.gif

Image:Killian_memos_MSWord_animated.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by M. E. Smith (notify | contribs).

• there is no proof the original document is free of copyright, this animation violates the original copyright by being a clear derivative work, it is of dubious fair use in the 4 articles it is being used and it is also possibly original research Bleh999 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The documents are "allegedly" the works of the federal government, so would be free of copyright - and the animation demonstrates what is meant in the text about "proportional font spacing" and the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman, which cannot be adequately explained without visual aides. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said every document produced by the US federal government is in the public domain, that's not true. It depends on the creating organization and the release of the specific item. Anyway even if it were in the public domain, it would make more sense to include the actual document rather than this which is claimed (c) of littlegreenfootballs and fair use This image shows nothing except some extra noise produced in the original typewritten vs the digital copy, it is 100% original research, such allegations of authenticity are to be detailed in the article itself rather than the need for an animation. Bleh999 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It isn't Original Research, since it was first published outside Wikipedia. It's not obviously notable -- the only concern is copyright. I don't believe the image is subject to copyright. Even if the original text itself (not image, but just the text) would have been copyrighted, it was written before 1989, meaning that it would only still be under copyright if the copyrighted had been subsequently renewed with the copyright office, which is implausible. Typefaces (fonts) are ineligible for copyright in the U.S., leaving nothing in the image which could be copyrighted. The true "source" is in dispute, but that's what's noteworthy about it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately Littlegreenfootballs.com is a blog/ultra-partisan discussion forum, so I'd hardly call that a reliable source. Now if IIRC, the speculation on these memos leads to three possibilities: 1) they are genuine; 2) they were forged by Bill Burkett (as alleged by LGF); 3) they were forged by Karl Rove (as alleged by Daily Kos). In the first case, they would be not subject to copyright, being a work of the Texas Air National Guard (a federal agency). In the latter two cases, they would be subject to copyright (unless you want to argue that Rove was operating in an official capacity as a federal employee if he in fact did forge them). So besides the non-reliable source issue, we cannot claim fair use on a item where the copyright holder is unknown. However, if this is to be kept, then its use should be limited to Killian documents authenticity issues. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image kept. The image is considered a work of a U.S. Government employee in the performance of their duty so is public domain until proven otherwise. The animation does not add any creative element to the original text to qualify for copyright. -Nv8200p talk 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:MurrayofAthollTartan.jpg

Image:MurrayofAthollTartan.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by PlaydoughRevisited (notify | contribs).

• image is not a logo, its just a pic of a tartan found on the net. should be deleted. — Celtus 09:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have retagged this as {{PD-art}}. The proximate source for this image appears to be the webpage [6]. However, the design of the tartan is believed to date to ca. 1777 [7]. It is not clear whether the image is a photograph of a woven sample, or is computer generated. If it is a woven sample, the weaving of the sample is entirely determined by the threadcount of the underlying design; it is therefore no more than a slavish reproduction, and will not attract copyright in its own right. The photograph does not attract copyright either, per Bridgeman vs Corel. If the image is computer-generated, this similarly is a slavish reproduction of the threadcount of the underlying design. Therefore, either way, PD-art is an appropriate tag. Jheald 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:MurrayofTullibardineTartan.gif

Image:MurrayofTullibardineTartan.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by PlaydoughRevisited (notify | contribs).

• image is not a logo, its just a pic of a tartan found on the net. should be deleted. — Celtus 09:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have re-tagged this as {{PD-art}}, as per Murray of Atholl above. Specifically, the proximate source for this image appears to be the webpage [8]. However, the design of the tartan is believed to date back to ca 1679 [9]. It is not clear whether the image is a photograph of a woven sample, or is computer generated. If it is a woven sample, the weaving of the sample is entirely determined by the threadcount of the underlying design; it is therefore no more than a slavish reproduction, and will not attract copyright in its own right. The photograph does not attract copyright either, per Bridgeman vs Corel. If the image is computer-generated, this similarly is a slavish reproduction of the threadcount of the underlying design. Therefore, either way, PD-art is an appropriate tag. Jheald

Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_terrorist_4_-_Sept_1,_2004.jpg

Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_terrorist_4_-_Sept_1,_2004.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Noitall (notify | contribs).

• It's not clear what is going on in this screenshot since there is no real description, the fair use rationale does not describe it's exact use in the article Bleh999 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, another odd choice by Bleh999 to delete nearly a dozen random images in articles of mine...the copyright holder is an unknown Beslan hostagetaker/terrorist, and he freely gave the videotape to media outlets and the public for dessemination. It is one of very few images of what was going on inside the school during the most notable terrorist attack in Asia in the past decade, and certainly fits fair use criteria. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So what does this image show anyway? Can you provide a source for this video, where it was first published Bleh999 04:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It shows the gymnasium packed with hostages, and explosives hung off the ceiling nets. It doesn't matter "where it was first published" since no television agency owns the copyright to it, it's sole creative content was by the terrorist who filmed it and then released it (seemingly free of any form of copyright to be widely distributed), and it seems according to Russian Copyright Law, any anonymous work must have a legal representative of that work, to maintain copyright...something this work lacks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • According to the Berne convention something only becomes an 'anonymous work' after 50 years at the earliest from first date of publication, your copyright claims are unfounded, everything is copyrighted unless explicitly released under a free license, copyright is automatically granted. We delete photos of Adolf Hitler because they are copyrighted, because this may have been made by a terrorist is irrelevant. We still need a source for this screenshot from 2004 'Where did this image come from?' is required by wikipedia policy and WP:NONFREE#Policy requires: "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." none of these are currently satisfied. Bleh999 03:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Shururcij. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To clarify, the image now lists its source, as is known. (The source is anonymous. This isn't a missing source, it's an anonymous source.) It also had a valid rationale now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:ZJarrah.JPG

Image:ZJarrah.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by WhisperToMe (notify | contribs).

• incorrect license, this may be blocked property but is not actually a work of the US federal government Bleh999 11:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: So far, no source stating that this is a German image has been provided. WhisperToMe 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then, who is it the work of? I thought that if the U. S. Federal Government reveals a picture on a website, then that picture if the property of the U. S. Federal Government. WhisperToMe 15:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, User:Bleh9999 is making bad faith nominations. Ziad Jarrah's passport photo is not only key to identifying the man who flew a plane on 9/11, but is the federal work of a government (German, not US, so template is incorrect and should be changed), representing zero financial loss, a low resolution image that is illustrating the man in question.
    • So since when did a work of the German government become a work of the US federal government, in what way is my nomination bad faith since you admit it's an incorrect license Bleh999 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: What is the source stating that this is the work of the German government? WhisperToMe 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The U.S. Gov introduced this image as evidence at the Moussawi trial, and listed that the image's source was "unknown".[10] Both CNN[11] and Reuters[12] feel comfortable reproducing this image without crediting any copyright-holder. That's pretty conclusive that the source is unknown and unknowable. This image may violate the letter of our NFCC, but it passes the spirit. (It does not discourage use of free materials, and does not open the Foundation up to lawsuits. (By the way, this is obviously a good-faith nomination.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How do we know this is actually his passport photo? To be clear, the claim of "unknown" by the US government is NOT an attribution. It's when it was introduced ("intr'd") into evidence (look at the other photos, some of them have dates and some don't). CNN credits it to Agence France-Presse and the Telegraph credits it to Reuters. It's entirely possible that the press agencies know who the copyright holder is and bought licenses to distribute it. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image kept. Image is taken from the FBI website and acknowledged as a government photo by CNN here. There is no proof this is not a U.S. government photo. -Nv8200p talk 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:ZiadKhalaf.jpg

Image:ZiadKhalaf.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).

• Non free image used solely for identification of a living subject Bleh999 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a perfect use of Fair Use, "living subject" does not equate to "replaceable image" if the subject is held in indefinite detention as a terrorist - it applies if it's a University professor, celebrity, soldier or sports star. Convicted terrorists spending the rest of their life in a foreign prison...not so much. Photo was released by the subject himself in a "martyrdom" video, represents no financial loss, is of low resolution and there are no free alternatives. Stop making bad-faith nominations to delete every fairuse image in articles of Wikiproject:Terrorism. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • • Image has no source also, dead 'flickr' link. Bleh999 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "Source: Government-distributed confession video", either you're blind or my eyes are playing tricks on me.
        • How about actually naming which government and where it was first broadcast? if you knew those details, you have already uploaded images by the Associated Press claiming they were something else, providing source information to verify copyright is not optional Bleh999 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Neutral - The dead flickr account seems to be associated with this blog. In the blog post there is a dead flickr thumbnail next to the paragraph that discusses this subject, and the javascript note that pops up when you mouse over it says "AP Photo from FoxNews.com". further comment - The url referenced in the blog post is the same as that used in the image rationale, so it appears to be an AP photo, at least according to the blog. I'm not an expert on fair use, so I can't judge whether it can be re-sourced and kept, but the current claim is clearly false. - Crockspot 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if the objection to the image is that the photo is replaceable. He's in a Jordanian prison, which means you're more likely to get a new photo of George Washington than this guy. By the way, the photo is from a news clip that originally aired on the Jordanian government television station.[13][14] – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly a fair use of non free image per Quadell Taprobanus

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg

Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Akc9000 (notify | contribs).

• License is "permission only" (ie does not extend to third parties), is revocable, and prohibits derivative works[15][16]. — -N 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I spoke with the VP of Marketing for permission to use these photos. Cisco wants to allow Wiki to keep all the linksys and Cisco photo but also wants to preserve their rights as the copyright holder.

No one specifically told me what rights to ask Cisco for. If you would tell me, they would grant them. So please let me know and I will contact Cisco. Please do not delete these photo, allow Cisco 1 week to respond to the request. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for a link to the instructions you need. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Permission under GDFL granted by Cisco Systems. Email Forwarded. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image is now free. Thanks! Kept – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Blewburton_Fort.jpg

Image:Blewburton_Fort.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sciencebloke (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, No encyclopedic context. Nv8200p talk 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now linked to the page on Blewbury, where the fort in the photograph is mentioned

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Blue-ringed-octopus.jpg

Image:Blue-ringed-octopus.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by 098poi (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Absent uploader, Possible Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no evidence that this is a copyright violation and image is no longer orphaned. Mgiganteus1 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - free image, no reason to delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Bmc_perrache.JPG

Image:Bmc_perrache.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Grelaodk4 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• This image is almost a duplicate of Image:Prostitutesinfrance.JPG, which is used in the article Prostitution. The latter is the same except that the license plates are blurred out. ●DanMS • Talk 22:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Image:Prostitutesinfrance.JPG uploaded on top of this and then subsequently deleted. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.jpg

Image:Bobbyhutcherson-joelocke-072007.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nadworks (notify | contribs).

• Is released under a non-commercial creative commons license, not "copyright free use" as tagged. Nv8200p talk 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Please advise if the changes made will save the image from deletion. Thanks. --nadworks 08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No. The copyright holder does not allow it to be used free for any purpose. -Nv8200p talk 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Changed to CC-BY. howcheng {chat} 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Bodie_Saloon.jpg

Image:Bodie_Saloon.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jeremysgirl (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not orphaned, is used in the Bodie, California article as one of several illustrating the condition of the ghost town UOSSReiska 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Bonnieprince1.jpg

Image:Bonnieprince1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Chris Harris (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Commons. Image appers to be free (GFDL, UK freedom of panorama); and Bonnie Prince Charlie is a subject of ongoing interest. Jheald 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept pending Commons move. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Silmeria.gif

Image:Silmeria.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Renmiri (notify | contribs).

• Slightly weird nom as I think this image should be kept. User:A Man In Black removed this image from the Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria article (on a video game) by the argument that it is a redundant image with Image:Valkyrie Profile Silmeria logo.jpeg and thus invalid for fair use. I restored it, A Man in Black removed it again, etc. To avoid becoming a lame revert war, this matter is brought here for community discussion.

According to A Man in Black's disputed fair use rationale tag:

This is a piece of art scanned from a magazine, with no particular indication that it was "promotional." A magazine cover is not typically a general-release piece of art. There's no indication in the article that this particular piece of art is noteworthy. As for illustrating what the characters do and look like, this is also redundant, as the game cover does things about as well as this.

Disclaimer: This may be involved with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-05 WikiProject Final Fantasy, in which there are allegations of AMiB purging images uploaded by User:Renmiri, the uploader. Renmiri is apparently on vacation at the moment and will probably not respond to this IFD. Hopefully this case should be decided on its own merits, though. SnowFire 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for now, though it may well be replaced by a better or different image in the future, and should have its resolution trimmed slightly if not. As for AMiB's claims... on the issue of how to tag it, the {{Non-free promotional}} tag says "...to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." This magazine scan is obviously advertising material. As for illustrating characters, it is true that Alicia (the main character of the game) is on both the U.S. cover and this art; however, Silmeria (the character in blue armor) is not. Still, a footnote. Lastly, as for noteworthieness, this art was used in the Japanese cover of the game (see [17] for example), and a cropped version as the cover of the U.S. instruction manual. It's true the article doesn't delve into it much, but the article sucks in a lot of other ways right now (Not a frequent editor of it myself! Happened by it on chance.), and Wikipedia is not on a deadline. It's certainly fixable. SnowFire 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a duplicate; it's not a significant piece of art on its own, and for advertising material we already have the cover of the game. Typically, we don't do multiple covers for different regions unless a cover bears specific mention in the article; this applies to games, movies, books, etc.
  The fact that this is also scanned out of a random, unrelated magazine is merely a contributing factor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. If the article is rewritten to discuss the ad in some way it can always be re-uploaded or restored. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.