Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 18

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:Einstein tongue.jpg

Image:Einstein tongue.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Conti (notify | contribs).

• I fail to see how this image is a "non-repeatable historic event that is iconically associated with Albert Einstein". Legitimate fair-use photos of persons are extremely rare, and in this case, a replacement can be found. How is Einstein sticking out his tong so remarkable that a picture of it qualifies under fair use? SalaSkan ^{(Review me)} 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This picture is iconic of Einstein. It is ubiquitous in American culture at the very least, and as the rational states, it (the picture itself) is in fact talked about in the article--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not just a picture of a famous man, but a famous picture in its own right. Q.E.D. Fair use at Einstein, but not on user pages.--Father Goose 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  True, fair use does not extend to userpages. I will give them the heads up--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  .... rmed and alerted via my edit summary. Should I mention it on their talk pages as well? --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  I already told users about using the image just yesterday :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. per Cronholm. Search for more references, e.g. [1], [2], etc --Quiddity 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is very culturally relevant and is a good example of Einstein's place in pop culture both then and now. As to 'Userpages' ONE userbox used it, and ONE user page had that box (mine). I've changed the image to a free use image. Tiki God 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, but I didn't want there to be any doubt about keeping the image. It was on 3 userpages not including yours BTW.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This image is used in the Albert Einstein article. There are free photos of Einstein, so this image can't be used to depict the person. It is argued above that the image is notable in-and-of itself. . . but the event depicted is only mentioned in one sentence. The photo is not notable enough to be the primary focus of a major section of the article, so it is not notable enough to pass NFCC #8. The evidence above that the image is popular does not show that the image "contributes significantly to an article", which is what is required. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep only if discussion about the image is expanded - (Delete otherwise). Currently, the article simply describes (in one sentence) the occasion at which the picture was taken. This isn't enough to keep this image. But I believe it's possible to write a whole sub-section (or even a small article) about this picture. The subsection should mainly describe why is this image considered iconic and should completely avoid original research. We need many reliable sources talking about this image's notability, and not simply using the image (it's not up to us, as a tertiary source, to conclude that as it's heavily used, it's iconic and important)! I'm not convinced the sources provided in this ifd would suffice. The google search is obviously moot (I could prove that some images of Paris Hilton are iconic using this criteria). Although the neatorama.com article is a good reading, I don't think it count as a reliable source. And the msnnbc article doesn't discuss the image's notability at all. But I do believe such source can be found. But unless they are found, the image must be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep only if expanded text is written in a new “Albert Einstein in popular culture” article. Otherwise delete. The Albert Einstein article is already 85KB long. (By the way, someone should look at the other fair use images in this article.) --teb728 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have split out an Albert Einstein in popular culture page using the old content of the main article. I did not add expanded text on the iconic nature of the image; I leave that to those eager to keep the image. --teb728 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fully agree with TEB728. Apparently, this picture is "iconic" of Einstein, but currently, the article merely states this:
  

"On Einstein's 72nd birthday in 1951, UPI photographer Arthur Sasse was trying to persuade him to smile for the camera, but having smiled for photographers many times that day, Einstein stuck out his tongue instead (Kupper 2000)."

That's all, and far too little to justify a fair use image to me. Also, it isn't even sourced. Like TEB said, when there is an Albert Einstein in popular culture article (and I'm sure it could be created, see for example Adolf Hitler in popular culture), and the cultural impact of this picture is demonstrated, a fair use claim might be legitimate. Not now. SalaSkan 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded commentary is made: I concur with Abu badali, teb728, and Quadell. There's nothing in the inline text of this article to indicate why this picture is significant in any way other than that he stuck his tongue out for it. I think most of us have seen this image used countless times outside of Wikipedia. There's certainly substantial enough material *somewhere* to go on about the iconic nature of this image. But, it's not extant in this article. If the article is expanded to comment (significantly, I might add, not just to keep the image but with real relevance to Einstein) then perhaps the image could remain. Otherwise, it's purely decorative. I don't see the point. If it's culturally relevant, then write about it. If it's iconic, then write about it. But, to have a sentence about him sticking his tongue out...so what? Is there anyone among us who's never stuck their tongue before??? Are we depicting that he CAN, in fact, stick out his tongue? I don't recall Einstein having a tongue disability. --Durin 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Honestly? not only one of the most famous photos in the world, but one with a pop culture attached to it as anyone who has ever been to a bookshop would know, it takes much less time to add this "commentary" than to write up an IfD and then comments of the length of Durin's. {{sofixit}}--Konstable 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Seriously? Probably one of the ten or twenty most iconic photos in the history of photography ... if the section needs work, though, someone should work it. WilyD 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, guys, fair use is not about what the thing is, it's about how the thing is used. --bainer (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. That's why the picture here is used to describe the... picture and the event that lead to it being taken.--Konstable 05:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Describing a picture and the event that lead to it being taken is not enough to satisfy item #8 of out policy. Otherwise pretty much any picture ever taken would be able to pass this criterion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I think you are not following the argument. Please have a read of the section which uses the photo, then have a look at one of the hundreds of books that reference this photo, then explain how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein. And then make some specific statements that I can respond to if needed.--Konstable 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, re-read my argument. I didn't say this picture isn't notable. I said we're not discussing its notability. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please re-read my argument.--Konstable 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Just did it. You ask me to explain "how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein". I don't agree these are not part of popular culture around Einstein (as explained in my argument), so, I can't explain how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Konstable, read Abu badali’s first post on this image (dated 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)); he is saying much the same as you. The difference between you is that he adds that in order to fulfill WP:NFCC#8 the text in the article where the image is used needs to describe how the image is part of the popular culture around Einstein. (To which I add that this expanded text (and hence the image) should go someplace other than the Einstein biography, which is already too large.) --teb728 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. I would really like the reference to the photo in Albert Einstein in popular culture to be expanded more, but I feel it's sufficient to meet NFCC 8 (and I'm a real stickler for that particular criterion). howcheng {chat} 17:17, 24 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] Star Trek Photos

• I know this was discussed at length, but the screen shots that replaced the old deleted images, are again being replaced by photos with no source or copyright info, and quite frankly, look like publicity photos again.74.204.40.46 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Image:BCrusher2379.jpg
  
• Image:Picard2379a.jpg
  
• Image:Data2379.jpg
  
• Image:Worf2379.jpg
  
• Image:Troi2379.jpg
  

Worf and Troi are screenshots from Star Trek: Nemesis, the others have been updated with free and clear screenshotsm also from Nemesis. My bad. Squiggyfm 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete the old versions and the orphans - Picard is orphan (the image, not the captain), and we already have plenty of images of him. The old version of the images replaced by screenshots (like Worf) should be removed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Images still don't have any license or copyright information on them74.204.40.46 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Crusher, Picard and Data, but save Worf and Troi as those are screenshots from the Film Nemesis and are fair use as they are identifing elements of the motion picture.Squiggyfm 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• They just need source information on the images is all.74.204.40.46 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whorf was kept, since it's a screenshot, although I tagged it {{nsd}}. The others, some other admin deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:57, 31 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:Logo4bucks.png

Image:Logo4bucks.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hmwith (notify | contribs).

• Use of the Ohio State University logo---and its special type---consititutes a violation of copyright and trademark law. In addition, because of such, it was removed from the Ohio State University template, and its removal as per terms Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 from the OSU template has left it orphaned. AEMoreira042281 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Uploader/creator's comment: I made the image freehand on my computer. I thought what Ohio State would/could have copyrighted were the "O" with a buckeye leaf on the bottom, right corner and the "O" with "Ohio State" written through it. I didn't know that one could copyright a generic red letter "O" with a gray outline (easily made on any word processor program). If I was mistaken, I sincerely apologize, and have it be deleted.  hmwith  talk 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This clearly falls under the purview of fair use. The "O" may be a trademark owned by Ohio State, but that shouldn't inhibit its upload or display. Even complete reproduction is fair use (see [4]). Maybe update the licence template to reflect that, but I don't even think that's needed. Jeremiah 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Orphaned anyway. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 24 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:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg

Image:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image showing an athlete playing basketball. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most iconic moments in sporting history, and the pic is a screenshot not a photograph. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep enough of IP paranoia -- first, interpretation of fair use is patently poor (in the WP community, not targeting anyone in particular); second an encyclopedia bent on being bereft of (legitimate, mind you, if one is acquainted with the real meaning of fair use) images is meaningless. Third, the moment is indeed tremendously iconic to any basketball fan, avid or not, around the world—and in this instance the trite "a picture is worth a thousand words" resonates with a ring of logic. Fourth, the justification proffered for deletion is an oversimplification, to say the least. Chensiyuan 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

    You seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on non-free content (see WP:NFC). The purpose of this policy has little to do with protecting the rights of copyright owners; rather it aims at minimizing the use of non-free content in order to maximize the reusability of Wikipedia content. (I’m not saying that sarcastically; that’s what the policy really is.) The term “fair use rationale” is rather misleading: To show legal “fair use” is not nearly enough; rather the rationale must show that Wikipedia needs the non-free content. In particular, in order to save this image from deletion, you need to show that its use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. --teb728 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Both this image and the one underneath this add a tremendous amount to the Michael Jordan article; for those who actually know the events that the images are portraying, it's an opportunity to reminisce. For those that do not know about pivotal Jordan events (ie. The Shot and others), it's a valuable snapshot of history. I'm not exactly sure why the original user wanted these pictures deleted, but I cannot think of any good reason why either ought to be. GlassCobra 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It was nominated because, although the event may have been notable, we don't need this screenshot to understand the text about the event. And we don't use non-free material unless it's absence would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One of the most iconic moments in sporting history. We might as well do away with fair use if we're going to delete this pic. Aaron Bowen 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Picture is not necessary to understanding the text, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My god have we lost sight of reality here? This is a low res screenshot of a tremendously iconic moment is sporting history. Let's not get ridiculous here. Trevor GH5 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Finals_jordan_91_grab.jpg

Image:Finals_jordan_91_grab.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image showing a basketball player playing basketball. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Another one of the most iconic moments in American sports history, as you can see from the source of the pic. Also a screenshot and not a photograph. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't need this image to talk about the event. The event may be notable, but this screenshot is not. The source uses the screenshot to identify the link to the video showing the event. Luckily for them, they are the copyright holder. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep enough of IP paranoia -- first, interpretation of fair use is patently poor (in the WP community, not targeting anyone in particular); second an encyclopedia bent on being bereft of (legitimate, mind you, if one is acquainted with the real meaning of fair use) images is meaningless. Third, the moment is indeed tremendously iconic to any basketball fan, avid or not, around the world—and in this instance the trite "a picture is worth a thousand words" resonates with a ring of logic. Fourth, the justification proffered for deletion is an oversimplification, to say the least. Chensiyuan 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Both this image and the one above this add a tremendous amount to the Michael Jordan article; for those who actually know the events that the images are portraying, it's an opportunity to reminisce. For those that do not know about pivotal Jordan events (ie. The Shot and others), it's a valuable snapshot of history. I'm not exactly sure why the original user wanted these pictures deleted, but I cannot think of any good reason why either ought to be. GlassCobra 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Iconic moment. Aaron Bowen 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Picture is not necessary to understanding the text, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's definitely a matter of opinion. I, and several others who have already expressed opinions do not believe that it violates that particular tenet. GlassCobra 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No. None of the arguments above expressed the opinion that the image is necessary to understanding the text. All the keep arguments say the image should be deleted because the text is about a iconic event (which is not enough for keeping a non-free image) . --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep Abu's well documented copyright paranopia aside, this is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in American sports history, and a low res screenshot is perfectly acceptable. Trevor GH5 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It’s not a matter of copyright paranoia; you seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on non-free content. See my 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) comment on Image:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg (above). In order to save this image from deletion, you need to show that its use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs)

Both images were deleted, since they were not necessary to understand the events depicted. Reminiscing is great on sites designed for that purpose, and seeing a snapshot of history is also nice, but Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and we only use non-free media if they provide encyclopedic information that would not be available otherwise. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:05, 31 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:Einstein_patentoffice.jpg

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

• Image of a young Einstein with unknown copyrigth status (as explained on the image's description page). The image is not crucial to the understanding of any of the articles it's used in. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• This is clearly a cropped version of a PD image in Commons. Does that clear up its status here? --teb728 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The commons image is also tagged for deletion; but this was taken in 1905; how is it not PD by now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• If we can prove it was published before 1 July 1909, then {{PD-US}} would be applicable. It still would be deleted from Commons as Commons requires the image to be PD in both the home country and the U.S. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office (ie the new name for the Patent Office) says it was taken in 1904. [5] -- Jheald 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, but when was it published? You're right, that's the key question. Jheald 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The image is used at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951219.html. That site contains the general statement, “All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location.” [6] But for this image no copyright owner is identified; so apparently the site editors believe the image is PD in the U.S. --teb728 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept and tagged {{PD-US}}. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 24 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:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JdH (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image of Einstein receiving a medal. It doesn't seem to help on the understanding of the topics of none of the 7 articles it's used in. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is hard to imagine a more iconic picture of Planck and Einstein than this one. The Max-Planck-Medal is a highly prestigious award of the German Physical Society. It was firstly awarded on June 28, 1929. The laureates were Max Planck himself and Albert Einstein. The medal for Einstein was presented by Planck personally. The award which consists of a golden medal with the portrait of Max Planck and a hand-written document was and still is awarded by the German Physical Society for excellent performance in the field of theoretical physics. JdH 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The sentence "Max Planck presented the medal to Einstein" does not need a picture to be understood. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and do a more thorough check on its copyright status. 1929 is very close to the Public Domain Horizon, if all the Ts weren't crossed it may have become free since then. Who claims the copyright on it? The only active source listed, the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, explicitly claims to not hold the copyright. Bryan Derksen 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, we have to assume it's copyrighted unless we have some proof to believe it's not. We can't simply tag it as PD until someone comes claiming copyright. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (what JdH said) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. You don't need to worry to repeat someone else's argument (but of course, feel free to do so). --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Deleting an image of a photograph taken in the late 1920s would be excessive. Lacking evidence that there is a current copyright holder, it should be presumed to be in the public domain ("free"), or at minimum a perfect example of fair-use. This recent trend of nitpicking the rules and guidelines about illustrations such as this one has gotten very much out of hand. ... Kenosis 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you have it the wrong way around. Images are presumed to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise. howcheng {chat} 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've had a chance to look into the current policy discussion about "non-free" images a bit further. Nontheless, in this case, my advocacy of "keep" stands as is. The image does indeed enhance the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that mere text cannot possibly, no matter how well it's written. Seeing Einstein with Planck-- IMO, it's a fantastic, even stunning photograph to the eye of anyone who knows who Max Planck is. ... Kenosis 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image deleted. This reference indicates the image was part of the Bettman Archive which is now owned by Corbis. Since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2. NFCC #8 is violated in most of the articles the image is used in. -Nv8200p talk 18:04, 1 August 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:Tagore-einstein2.jpg

Image:Tagore-einstein2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dwaipayanc (notify | contribs).

• Unsourced image used under fair use, showing "2 monumental personalities" meeting. Used to illustrate the information that these 2 monumental personalities once met. In the 3 articles it's used in, it doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't this under PD, considering the age of the photo? --Ragib 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • PD has to do with when was the image first published, and not when it was produced. And in the lack of source information, we can't establish that. Of course, if this image is discovered to be in PD, I shouldn't be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • At least one of the subjects (Tagore) died in 1940, so the image has to be pre-1940. Most likely it is pre 1933, if taken in Germany. --Ragib 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if we assume the supposedly German photographer died in the first years of the War, it isn't still 70 years since then. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Was it a German Photographer? Was it first published in Germany? Under Indian copyright law, photographer's death is irrelevant, rather, for photos, copyright is provided for 60 years from the date of publication. Of course, the lack of source and author of the photograph makes such discussions pointless. :( --Ragib 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
          • According to the caption at Albert Einstein the photo was taken July 14, 1930. Of course that doesn't tell us when it was published. --teb728 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• According to [7] (which shows a different photograph of these two men, but probably from the same photo session), the photographer is an American named Martin Voss, and nobelprize.org credits this exact photo to "Martin Vos/Rabindra Bhavan, Shantiniketan". Artnet confirms the name "Martin Vos", but I can't seem to find anything else about him on Google. Anyone have a subscription to Artnet? I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts. howcheng {chat} 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. It might be public domain if it were published in the U.S. (a good assumption, given that the photographer is American and the photo was supposedly widely circulated) and it were missing a copyright notice or if the copyright wasn't renewed, but there's no guarantee, and so we have to err on the side of caution and treat this as a non-free image. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 24 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:HeroesSeason1.jpg

Image:HeroesSeason1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TheSequelofDisney (notify | contribs).

• This image has two rationales. The first seems to have been designed to cover every theorhetical eventuality a DVD cover could be used for, but it does not specifically address how the image significantly contributes to the article. The second rationale: "For an article about a tv-serie, the cover artwork is very important and adds significantly to the article." is very ambiguous and again, doesn't fulfill WP:NFCC#8. The image is not discussed or referenced in the article, and seems to have no special significance aside from decoration of the DVD section of the Heroes article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Like album covers, a DVD cover is considered acceptable if accompanying an article section with prose commentary devoted to the DVD. Arguably, the section here is just about okay, even though the style is not great. Jheald 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The referenced section of the article lists the release dates, number of discs, and contents of the DVDs, without any notable verifiable reference to the box or its cover art. This information in no way requires illustration, and is not rendered better understandable with the decorative image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Per policy on cover art, there doesn't need to be a reference to the box or its cover art. (See "images" section on WP:NONFREE). The cover-art image is considered as acceptable as identifying the unique image associate with the merchandise. Per policy, specifically for cover art, it is whether there is sufficient discussion about the DVD - eg release dates, contents, critical reception etc - that matters. Jheald 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Er... WP:NFCC#Images says: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." A list of contents ≠ critical commentary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Note that "critical commentary" is a specific legal term in US law, which does not imply "criticism" (neither literary nor artistic). Discussions are ongoing at WT:FAIR as to whether the wording should be replaced in the guideline with the more transparent term "significant commentary" (having the same meaning), for which the requirement test has been suggested of a separate prose section devoted to the item the cover image is associated with. As I originally wrote, the case here is on the margin, but IMO is just about okay, and would be strengthened if the prose were improved. Jheald 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. As Jheald says, this is a close call. The deciding factor for me is that it's not a straight-on view of the cover but instead an angled one, which requires more creative decisions than the former and there's no real reason for us to be using this type of image. Recommend replacement with a 2-D representation of the cover art only. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 26 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.