Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 25

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:DestinysChild.jpg

Image:DestinysChild.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 17Drew (notify | contribs).

• Fair use image of a band, that has broken up, but claimed free use cannot be obtained. However, upon further review, there IS a free use image, in the article mentioned even. Replaced this image with that free use image, and this fair use image is now also an orphan. Delete because it is a replaceable fair use image and because it's an orphan. Ejfetters 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If it's replaced, then I have no objection to deleting the image. However, the copyright status of Image:Dcbet07.JPG should first be verified. Wneedham02 has uploaded several images that were obviously not taken by him/her (e.g. Image:Caphoto06.JPG, Image:Dc05tour.JPG) and pictures from so many performances by Beyonce or Christina Aguilera that it would likely not be possible to attend all the performances. Considering these images were uploaded after the user had several images taken from fansites and then deleted, I would recommend listing this image, and probably most of the other ones, at WP:PUI to determine whether or not Wneedham02 is continuing to take images from fansites but is giving false background information. 17Drew 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with this comment, maybe someone can find a free use image of the band on flickr? I understand they are broken up, but, they've been around for a little while and it hasnt been that long since the breakup. There might be something of use there. Ejfetters 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• One of the images "by" the uploader was of Knowles at the same event. It was straight from a fansite, so it's incredibly unlikely that this one of the band is genuine. I've listed this one at WP:PUI. If a genuinely free image of the group can be found though, please let me know and I'll delete the copyrighted one as {{db-author}}. 17Drew 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 2 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 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:Hasan_Taqizadeh.jpg

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

• No source to backup the claim that this image was published before 1970 (PD in Iran). Although, it seems the image was indeed produced before 1970 (by subject's death date). Abu badali ^(talk) 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Okay, this one's borderline. It was certainly produced before 1970, and it seems very likely that it was first published in Iran before 1970, which would make it PD. In cases where an image is clearly copyrighted, we have to be diligent about documenting the source -- but in cases like these, where the image is most likely PD (and there is no evidence the image is copyrighted), I would tend to say that's enough. There's obviously room for disagreement. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep maybe I'm mis-reading the tag, but it doesn't say published before 1970. It says 30 years from date of publication (2007-30=1977). So it should be fine if it was published anytime before 1977. The uploader says he has a copy of the photo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the definition of publication. -Nard 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - note this comment on my talk page by the uploader. (But please ignore the personal attacks therein.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The photo is fine if it was taken prior to 1977. The photo is of a man who died in 1970 and was clearly taken while he was alive. Let me know what I am missing, because I can't see why we are repeatedly considering this for deletion. Euryalus 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  You're missing that the law refers to the date of first publication, and not the date at which the picture was taken. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is possible that the image was not published until 1978 or later, which would make it copyrighted. Or it's possible that the image was first published outside of Iran, which would also mean it's still copyrighted. I don't think it's at all likely, but it's possible, and that's the basis for the nomination. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Taqizadeh was a public figure since around 1900 (he was member of the First Majles, elected in 1906) and remained one for the rest of his life. Are we going to think that this photograph was suddenly published after 1977, say in 1978, that is some ten years after Taqizadeh's death and one year before the Iranian Revolution? And Abu Badali knows all these (moreover, the chronology of Taqizadeh's life is in "Hasan Taqizadeh" for everyone to read): I wrote all these to Abu Badali over three months ago (to be precise in March 2007) when he for the first time marked this very photograph for deletion. At the time it was decided, by one of the moderators, that this photograph could stay. For some reason Abu Badali seems to have made deletion of this photograph one of his prime tasks. One should wonder about Abu Badali's true motivation, which he refrains from telling us. --BF 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith, and refrain from making personal attacks. Abu badali's concern is that we don't have proof that the image was published before 1977. That's a valid concern.

• Having good faith is one thing, closing one's eyes to reality is another. Taqizadeh was for 70 years on the political stage of Iran; he was for numerous times an elected representative to Iran's parliament (whether this parliament functioned properly is not relevant here). In other words, he was one of the most visible men in the country during his lifetime. Is it conceivable that such a man existed just in people's imagination, or else people would recognize him if they saw him on the street? Is it conceivable that Taqizadeh's photographs were released, say, some 10 years (if not longer) after his death? If so, for what purpose? That people would at long last see who had been the President of Iran's senate? We could as well believe in fairies. Please just look at the amount of text produced hereabove. Why this waste of time and energy? Just to show our good faith in Abu Badali's judgement? What has Abu Badali done to deserve this good faith? Thank you very much, I don't need your version of good faith. Incidentally, it is common practice that one signs one's messages on these pages. --BF 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 2 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 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:Amyphoto.jpg

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

• Delete per WP:NFCC#10a, no clear source/copyright holder. The given source does not contain this image, it includes a fair use instance of a book cover that happens to contain a similar image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep image caption (in article) plainly says "Amy's 5th Grade School photo, released by Bay Village Police and FBI in 1989. Used with permission. Appeared on the cover of the Cleveland Free Times October 17, 2006." Her 5th grade photo is obviously from her parents. Use some common sense. -Nard 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no need to be insulting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't being insulting, I was citing Wikipedia:Use common sense. -Nard 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is the source verifiable? The Cleveland Free Times article cited shows only a copyrighted book cover. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So we have established the image has appeared on a book cover. What further verification do you need? Where else would a school photo of a lost child come from except her parents or law enforcement? -Nard 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but we don't assume the source of a copyrighted image. It needs to be verifiable per policy. Has anyone tried to contact the book's author (or the police, or the FBI, or the book publisher)? (As a clarification - it may have been the parent's intention to release the image for use in the search, but they may have a problem with its use in Wikipedia. We just don't know without a verifiable source/copyright.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • • The book's author seems to be the person who uploaded the image, though of course that would have to be verified. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The uploader, User:JamesRenner claims in the image description it's used with permission. He's the author of a published article on the subject, which goes into detail about this photo[2]. Is that good enough? I for one believe the assertion of permission. -Nard 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice conflict of interest there. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I can urge a sensible approach. You asked N to verify the competence of the source, which he did, the conflict of interest has no bearing here. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note, this image creepily appears to contain a nipple. If it's retained that should probably be airbrushed or cropped out. -Nard 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a shadow, by the by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (Actually, I'm wondering if the whole article should be deleted. We've already started deleting several articles about people who had no notability other than some which resulted from another person's crime.) I had already deleted the image twice as lacking source and licence information. The image does not contribute to our understanding of the article. And it's highly doubtful that the girl's parents would wish to release it under a licence that allows anyone to use, modify, or redistribute it for any purposes whatsoever. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's used under fair use, not a free license. -Nard 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, which is why I commented that it doesn't contribute to our understanding of the article. I was just pointing out that in addition to the fact that it may not satisfy the requirements for fair use, it's unlikely that it could be made free. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Oddly enough, the use rationale only defends its use in a completely unrelated article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a c/p error[3]. Or somebody just not paying attention. -Nard 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure what purpose it serves per WP:NFCC#8 either, besides serving as a memorial. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A picture of a person has no significance on the article about them? -Nard 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sufficient significance to justify it under our policy, unless it helps us to understand the article. If I read it when there's no image, at most, I might think it's a pity there's no image. I wouldn't think, I can't understand this properly, and an image would help. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, there's significant commentary on this image in the article I linked to about this photo, about how the little girl hated it but how it ended up being iconic of the search for her killer, being hung for months at a time on local bulletin boards and lamposts and carried by local residents wherever they went. Enough to make a whole section in the article about the picture. You want commentary on the image to make it pass NFCC#8? Tomorrow I'm going to do just that. -Nard 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (Comment) The article is protected, but if/when it passes AfD and is unprotected I will provide enough critical commentary to make it pass NFCC#8. -Nard 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • • That still doesn't solve the source/copyright issue. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
          • No, there is no problem. The sources cited speak at length to the source of the image. Furthermore we have a perfectly valid assertion from the uploader. We know exactly where it comes from. It came from her parents and the police, just as the uploader suggested. Where else would it come from? -Nard 08:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The source and copyright holder need to be listed on the image description page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Another comment - since the author was able to get permission for the image in his book, could he get it released under a free license? That would solve the problem. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Asking for a free licence for this is inappropriate. GFDL is important for pictures that are to be reused for other articles - and in this case, it is of a dead girl, and her picture is there for historical reasons, and it is inappropriate for it to be put on other articles, unless they are relevant to her murder GFDL release for a picture of a murdered little girl isn't appropriate. She shouldn't be used for other articles (which is what GFDL is for). Not appropriate. BlueSapphires 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is assinine. This image is historic and important to not only this article but in this unsolved case. We're still looking for people who may remember seeing her leave with someone that day. If they can't see the image, their memory cannot be sparked. This image has appeared in countless newspaper articles. It is also part of the investigatory file, which is public record in the state of Ohio, and does not need permission to publish. Beyond that, however, her only surviving parent has granted me permission to publish this photo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs)
  • Did they give you permission under a free licence? Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • She's dead, Jim. And I can see someone not wanting to authorize derivative works for the photo of their murdered 10 year old. -Nard 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The copyright would be owned by the school photographer, so the living parent couldn't release the rights even if he wanted to. That being said, it's historically significant and there is a provided source (the free times). The image's fate rests on the outcome of the AfD. But for what it is worth, I say keep. IronGargoyle 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This was, presumably, a commissioned photograph. The copyright is likely owned by the client. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I presume you don't have school-age kids, or perhaps it's different where you live, but in the U.S. the copyright (and negatives) are held by the school photographer. If you want prints (or reprints), you have to pay an arm and a leg for them. Also, in the U.S. at least, a work for hire situation must be explicitly defined, such as in a contract, for the copyright to be transferred. Heck, even in a situation where you ask someone to take your picture with your camera, you still don't own that copyright! howcheng {chat} 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The source/copyright status has been verified. Any concerns over article content should go to the relevant talk page or AfD. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but did I miss something? The copyright is owned by whom, and how was that verified? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see above comments by James Renner and Nard. Your concerns strain credulity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • NFCC #10 says that we must specify the copyright-holder if we wish to use a non-free image. Renner and Nard have made educated guesses as to who the copyright holder might be, but there is no evidence of who holds the copyright. Is the copyright held by a parent, the school, a separate company hired by the school, or who? If the parents turned the copyright over to the AP, then it could be a serious copyright violation for us to print the picture (since the AP makes its living by licensing the right to use these pictures to news sources, and they're not cheap). We don't know, and we shouldn't claim that the copyright status has been verified if it hasn't. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment about AP If AP licenced it, it would be for their use only, not for global ownership. Renner would know this as it is on his book. By the way, since VO is alleging that the girl isn't notable, then presuming her picture is owned by AP (probably not - possibly allowed for print with permission) is contradicting the arguement for article deletion.

• ""Amy's 5th Grade School photo, released by Bay Village Police and FBI in 1989. Used with permission. Appeared on the cover of the Cleveland Free Times October 17, 2006."; "It is also part of the investigatory file, which is public record in the state of Ohio, and does not need permission to publish. Beyond that, however, her only surviving parent has granted me permission to publish this photo." The source, prior publication, and parental permission are all verified. Since this photo is part of public record, the parents did not sell the copyright to AP. Since James Renner published this photo on the front cover of his book, I think it is foolish to assume that he is not aware of its copyright status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • Most likely, the AP licensed distribution rights from the parents. It's also equally possible that Renner has a non-transferable book-only license. howcheng {chat} 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, what gives you the idea that AP licenced it? Do you have proof of this? And if you do, do you have proof that it the own full copyrights? Renner would know. Why not listen to him. BlueSapphires 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't the AP have licensed it? If they didn't, that means they're just using it under fair use without the permission of the copyright holder, and raking in fees from news outlets that want to use the photo. I never said that they own the rights, I said they probably licensed the rights (i.e., paid money or obtained permission from the copyright holder). Renner may be the author of the book, but there's nothing to say that he knows anything about copyrights. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, Renner is aware of the licensing details and copyright status of this photograph, which appear to be the subject of this dispute. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - We aren't sure who uploaded the picture, but Mr. Renner was active recently in discussion of this picture, and he's used it on his book - so he is aware of the licencing. I'm shooting him an email, but I have a comment to make.

GFDL is a preference, not a requriement for Wikipedia - This deletion is being carried out as if it were a requirement that all pictures on Wikipedia be GDFL, and that is not true. Per Wikipedia:Uploading Images, Fair use images are fine on Wikipedia - but they cannot be uploaded to the commons. Asking Amy's parents to release this to GDFL isn't appropriate, and since it is not necessary, then why not let it go? I was going to write them myself, to counter what I feel is overly critical image personnel - but it isn't right to ask her parents to release it to GFDL. If they do that, it could wind up used for any strange thing, and why should they give up the full right to the picture, when it isn't necessary? More importantly, why is Videmus Omnia so concerned that this be GFDL? So he can put it in the Wikimedia Commons? (that is the difference between free or fair use vs. GFDL. If that's the approach, then Wikipedia is going to lose a lot of good pictures, that it could have the right to.

Enhancement of article - Does the picture explain anything about the article? Yes, as much as having a picture of any bio subject does. If you require that every picture about a bio person be necessary and enhancing of the bio, then no bio would have a picture. What I see here is a strict usage of rules, to forward a deletion that isn't necessary at all.

Consensus What I see is image-focused people here driving this deletion, and everyone else who makes comments being dismissed. Do image people have more rights to decide what is relevant or such than others? This seems to contrave the Wikipedia community concept notion.BlueSapphires 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this feels you are running the gantlet here, then good. Because of Wikipedia's free content goals, it's up to the uploader and/or image supporters to make a convincing case as to why a non-free image should be allowed to stay. We are trying to use as little non-free content as possible, keeping only that which is necessary. Oh, and keep only if the copyright holder can be accurately determined. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Per Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy #10a, since the copyright owner cannot be properly attributed, the image must be deleted. Since this is Amy's 5th grade class picture, the copyright holder would be the studio that photographed the image and not the police or the parents. -Nv8200p talk 01:10, 3 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:seattlehistory_org Logging train at Mt. Si, 1903-05, 6966, v00-703w.jpg

Image:Seattlehistory_org Logging train at Mt. Si, 1903-05, 6966, v00-703w.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GoDot (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation. The image clearly contains a copyright statement. The copyright is also asserted on the source website [4]. The uploaded has tagged the image as being in the public domain because it was published before January 1, 1923. There is however no evidence of when it was published before that date, only that it was taken before that date. I asked on about this on the image talk page and uploader's talk page and got no response. Patleahy 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Copyright? I think not. Museums often engage in what is called copyfraud, attempting to copyright older works that are not eligible. This image is PD. The image is from the "Webster and Stevens" Collection. Webster and Stevens was a commercial image supplier[5]. -Nard 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

'Comment The original image may be in the PD, but does this extend to the digitisation of the image undertaken by the museum? 86.12.249.63 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bridgeman v Corel, my friend. -Nard 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, digitalizations do not create a new copyright. If you have reliable source for the information that this information was first published before 1923 (maybe the museum website itself), then use this source information on the image description page and forget about the bogus museum copyright claim. You can even crop the copyright statement from the photo. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Seattle Times link does not establish that this image was published before 1923, which I believe is the key issue here. -- Patleahy 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the source says the image is from 1903-1905. It is possible that the image wasn't published until after 1923, but that seems unlikely. To be under copyright today, it would have had to have been first published 20 or more years after the photo was taken, with a copyright notice (assuming it was published before 1978), and that copyright would have had to have been renewed, a process commonly taken for images deemed valuable but quite unlikely for an image that was so neglected it wasn't even published for two decades or more. We haven't proved it's PD, but all evidence points in that direction. I don't want to encourage the overuse of the "avoid copyright paranoia" slogan, but I think it applies in this case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the "Webster and Stevens" collection was donated to the museum as never-printed negatives? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the first publication was after 2003, then the image is legally "unpublished", and wouldn't be a problem (since it's anonymous and created before 1909). It could be copyrighted if the museum first published the image between 1978 and 2003. Again, unlikely (in my opinion). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why anonymous? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because (if this were the case) the image would have been first published by a party that did not create the image and who did not name the creator upon publication. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But the party did named the creators, didn't they? The museum asserts that the images were created by "Webster and Stevens". --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. Not anonymous. I wonder who Webster and Stevens were. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. This image is more likely PD than not. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 2 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 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:Fifth_Doctor.jpg

Image:Fifth_Doctor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alan-WK (notify | contribs).

• Unsourced image said to be known to have come from a press kit or similar source Abu badali ^(talk) 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. User claims to have taken a screen capture of a DVD for this image. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 2 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.