Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 2
[edit] Image:NicePlayerLogo.png
- Orphaned, Obsolete commons:Image:NicePlayer.png -- Selket Talk 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.soryu.jpg
- - uploaded by David Newton (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete by commons:Image:HIJMS Soryu.jpg -- Selket Talk 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plan_of_Gate_Church_of_the_Trinity.jpg
- Orphaned, Questinable license authenticity. -- Selket Talk 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader. However, licence is not questionable. Petro Vlasenko (ua.vlasenko.net) has been e-mailed about using his materials and he agreed to allow his works on Wikipedia, under the {{GFDL}} licence. —dima/talk/ 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SSCarlosCarrillo.jpeg
- - uploaded by Hephaestos (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, lower quality version of commons:Image:Liberty ship transport SS Carlos Carrillo off San Francisco, California, circa 1945-46.jpg -- Selket Talk 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NYCS-R4-1.JPG
- - uploaded by BlastOButter42 (notify | contribs).
- Obsolete by commons:Image:NYCS-R4-3.JPG -- Selket Talk 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flex-Power-tubes-shot.jpg
- - uploaded by Princemason (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, likely used on deleted article about the subject User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Thumb_01052007171622.jpg
[edit] Image:Vagina27.jpg
- - uploaded by Rigormortis27 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Airy_Disc.JPG
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure of any encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Encyclopedic application would be at Airy disc - but it looks like it's been photoshopped into existance and thus is redundant to the image we already have. Megapixie 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rolled_hem2.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pearls_n_piping_.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Satinedge_creative_Feet.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sequinsribbons.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bias_tape.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Welting.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Walking_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Teflon_presser_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Straight_stitch_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rolled_hem.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pintuck.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Old_buttonhole.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Little_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gathering_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fabric_folder.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Finger_guard.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cording_foot.jpg
- - uploaded by Clarerowley (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality given size, text of source indicates all rights reserved. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DLH_SC.jpg
- Low quality -- blurry and suffers from cat version of red eye effect. howcheng {chat} 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ilaiyaraja_at_the_recording_studio_3.jpg
- This image is unused (an orphan) and should be deleted. An alternative for it is already available and is in use. AppleJuggler 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Frosie2.jpg
- - uploaded by Kogsquinge (notify | contribs).
cbs.comten.com.au images are produced to illustrate their website, not ours. Abu badali (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is NOT a CBS image.Kogsquinge 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, the image is from http://ten.com.au . Sorry. But unfortunately, ten.com.au, just like cbs.com, is not a source for promotional material. Read the section 4 ("Intellectual Property Rights") of their terms of use. As a general rule, when in need to illustrate a fictional tv character, use a screenshot. This is why the fair use provision of U.S. law is all about. "Promotional images" are more about "implicit licensing" or, like in this case, about "unlikelihood to be sued".
- Keep. The image is being used to depict fictional characters. It's within our guidelines to use a single non-free image of a copyrighted character (under a fair use claim) in an article about that character, so long as the image is no larger than necessary. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: Do you understand this image was produced by
CBSNetwork Ten to be used on it's website,cbs.comten.com.au, to give it an advantage over unofficial websites? The artist was paid to pose for this picture, an photographer and his team were hired to work on this image... While fair use law guarantees thatCBSNetwork Ten can't forbid us from using a piece of it's tv-series (a screenshot) to talk about that tv-series, posed images fromcbs.comten.com.au are independent copyrighted work, and as we're not using it to talk about the copyrighted work itself our use is not fair. On the contrary, we're using these images to enhance our website, replacing the original market role for which these images produced. --Abu badali (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)- I understand. But if we could make a fair use claim on a screenshot, I don't see how making a fair use claim on this still photo is any different. Either way, by the strictest imaginable interpretation of WP:FUC #2, we're making our site useful by publishing their copyrighted image without their permission. But an interpretation this strict would prevent us from using any "fair use" images that are published elsewhere on the web. And I don't think that's supportable. A reasonable interpretation of FUC #2 should prevent us from re-using an image that the copyright holder is selling, but not one that they are distributing for free (assuming all other criteria are satisfied.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- We could make "a fair use claim on a screenshot" in an article about the movie/tv-series, and we could make a "fair use claim on (a low resolution version of) this still photo" in an article about this photo/website. No image is "fair use" per se. It always depends on the usage. This interpretation doesn't prevent the use of every image "that are published elsewhere on the web". I don't see how you reached that conclusion. We can always use a small part of a copyrighted work to comment on that work. But never use it solely for our convenience. "Selling" an image is not the only way to get some value from it. Recording labels usually don't sell album cover pictures independently, but we still can't an album cover with a rose to illustrate a text on a rose. --Abu badali (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand. But if we could make a fair use claim on a screenshot, I don't see how making a fair use claim on this still photo is any different. Either way, by the strictest imaginable interpretation of WP:FUC #2, we're making our site useful by publishing their copyrighted image without their permission. But an interpretation this strict would prevent us from using any "fair use" images that are published elsewhere on the web. And I don't think that's supportable. A reasonable interpretation of FUC #2 should prevent us from re-using an image that the copyright holder is selling, but not one that they are distributing for free (assuming all other criteria are satisfied.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: Do you understand this image was produced by
- Delete and replace with a screenshot. No indication that the image is promotional in nature from the website or websites terms of use. Megapixie 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Currencysymbols.gif
- Orphaned because Image:Currency-Symbol Regions of the World circa 2006.png made this image obsolete. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Greko-Turkish-Afyon-copyright-1920.gif
- - uploaded by OttomanReference (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned because Image:Greko-Turkish-Afyon-1920.png made this image obsolete. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Currencyshrunk.gif
- Orphaned because Image:Currency-Symbol Regions of the World circa 2006 cropped.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 05:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:.Zardragon and Matthew in sky with Scooters.gif
- Orphaned because Image:Zardragon and Matthew in sky with Scooters.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg
- - uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete by commons:Image:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg -- Selket Talk 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- If it's now on the commons, this can just be deleted. I've done it myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All state license plates
- - uploaded by Cornellrockey (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by TVSRR (notify | contribs). - possibly legitimate to use as fair use in Vanity plate and U.S. and Canadian license plates, but should be removed elsewhere
- uploaded by Kitch (notify | contribs). - this one would be legitimate to use in Astronaut Memorial and U.S. and Canadian license plates, but it is unsourced and thus needs to go- - uploaded by CraigRNielsen (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by RideABicycle (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by WashingtonWillie (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by EaglesFanInTampa (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by LastUserNameEver (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by LastUserNameEver (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by TVSRR (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by RideABicycle (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Stevesean26 (notify | contribs).
Also, these are some Commons images which any Commons admins who notice this IFD may want to do something with:
- Image:VA SAM123 Lic Plate.png
- Image:Northwest Territories License Plate.jpg
- Image:New York State license plate, 2003 issue3.jpg
- Image:Pa-gbg8775.jpg
- Image:Dctaxationsample small.jpg - This is the Washington DC plate. Works of the US federal government are PD - does that include Washington, DC?
All of these plates, though mostly tagged with free copyright tags, are derivative works of copyrighted state license plate designs and thus cannot be used freely. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. state license plates (second nomination). --BigDT 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree with the derivative work argument. The uploaders have no authority to license them contrary to any terms the states may place on the plates. However some of those images are tagged as fair use and depending on use should be covered under WP:FUC. I'm not sure about DC: See District of Columbia home rule. The gov't of DC is a local municipality with Congress looking over its shoulder. The budget is funded by both local taxes and subsidies by Congress. I would say DC is its own entity, but I'm not an authority on the subject. ccwaters 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a source for the Challenger plate. It's not the exact source (I couldn't tell you where I got the larger pic here on WP), but it's the same image: A Florida Challenger plate with the "SAMPL" generic number on it. Please disclude it from the IFD. As for the others, there's no "free" replacement, so simply redo the license information. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I have added a suitable fair use rationale, removed this image from its use on a user page, and removed the IFD tag. --BigDT 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please remove the Ohio plate from this list. I never tagged it with a free copyright tag, and I was even careful to add a fair use rationale. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Galleries of non-free images are not considered to be a fair use of that image. As that image is only used in a gallery of license plates, it too needs to be deleted. --BigDT 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not used just for the sake of a gallery, it's used to illustrate the license plates for a particular state. So it is fair use. Maybe what we should be discussing is whether or not to delete the list of license plates page, because it's essentially useless without these. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we talking about Image:Oh license plate.jpg? It is only used in that one article. Maybe there is a duplicate of that image or another similar image used in a different article? --BigDT 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Here's what I meant to say: It's not fair use to use a gallery of unfree images. But in this case, the images are used to represent a specific purpose, and are not replaceable by free images. So I believe it is fair use in this particular situation. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the specific purpose other than to sit there and be a gallery? I agree with you it isn't replaceable ... but that isn't the problem. The problem is that a gallery of non-free images is not a fair use of those images. These images don't serve to add value to an article - they are themselves the content of the article and that isn't acceptable. --BigDT 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The specific purpose is to illustrate the license plates for each state. A state's license plate is like a company's logo: it helps to identify that particular state. The fact that they are used in a gallery is irrelevant, as this was simply the way it was chosen for them to be displayed. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- But that isn't a justification for use. We don't have galleries of non-free images. They are removed on sight from articles where they are found. Some admins
rougerbolder than I would have just speedied the article and not even bothered with the xFD discussions. Galleries of non-free images are not permitted ... I don't know any other way to say it. The purpose of these images is to sit there and be a gallery and that's not what we do. --BigDT 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)- Ok...so if I created an article entiled state symbols of Ohio and in detail described the state seal, state flower, and license plate, and what they represent, would it be fair use to include the image then?
If so, why is this different?Better question: If I were to go and expand the article greatly, to include explanations of the symbolism of each plate, would it be fair use then? Because I might just do that. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok...so if I created an article entiled state symbols of Ohio and in detail described the state seal, state flower, and license plate, and what they represent, would it be fair use to include the image then?
- But that isn't a justification for use. We don't have galleries of non-free images. They are removed on sight from articles where they are found. Some admins
- The specific purpose is to illustrate the license plates for each state. A state's license plate is like a company's logo: it helps to identify that particular state. The fact that they are used in a gallery is irrelevant, as this was simply the way it was chosen for them to be displayed. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the specific purpose other than to sit there and be a gallery? I agree with you it isn't replaceable ... but that isn't the problem. The problem is that a gallery of non-free images is not a fair use of those images. These images don't serve to add value to an article - they are themselves the content of the article and that isn't acceptable. --BigDT 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Here's what I meant to say: It's not fair use to use a gallery of unfree images. But in this case, the images are used to represent a specific purpose, and are not replaceable by free images. So I believe it is fair use in this particular situation. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we talking about Image:Oh license plate.jpg? It is only used in that one article. Maybe there is a duplicate of that image or another similar image used in a different article? --BigDT 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not used just for the sake of a gallery, it's used to illustrate the license plates for a particular state. So it is fair use. Maybe what we should be discussing is whether or not to delete the list of license plates page, because it's essentially useless without these. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Galleries of non-free images are not considered to be a fair use of that image. As that image is only used in a gallery of license plates, it too needs to be deleted. --BigDT 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was pretty involved with List of U.S. state license plates, which is why I uploaded some images. I'm sick of the roadblocks being thrown up in the way of a perfectly acceptable page. There are books with images of state license plates for SALE (for profit) with license plates. I don't think that people need to put up such obstacles to a decent page, but I don't care very much anymore. I say nix all images of license plates on Wikipedia, and please don't contact me again about license plates. RideABicycle | Talk | 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopedia largely unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The foundation's policy says, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." I don't see galleries of non-free images in that list. --BigDT 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that the article is presented as a gallery is irrelevant. These license plates are in that list...they are "identifying protected works", in this case, the plate design representing a state. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopedia largely unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The foundation's policy says, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." I don't see galleries of non-free images in that list. --BigDT 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep making fake license plates is illegal, but there is nothing copyrighted about these. They are utiliarian articles, most with no artistic features distinguishable from the utilitarian (which makes them PD-ineligible). The more artistic ones should be carefully sourced and tagged as fair use (non free). Nardman1 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PortonDownRestrictedArea.JPG
- - uploaded by Robert C Prenic (notify | contribs).
- Image created by uploader of two obvious copyvios; no source given for aerial imagery, and background aerial imagery has same overall color scheme as Google Maps imagery from Image:PortonDown2.jpg. — The Anome 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
- Delete UE and seems likely to be a copyvio of somewhere. Megapixie 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ghadir.jpg
- Uploader included no license tag and showed a website as the source. A third party added a GFDL license tag after the image was tagged as unlicensed. I am finding it difficult to assume that the editor who added the license tag did so in good faith, i.e. that s/he just happened to be the creator of an image uploaded by somebody else, particularly in light of the tagger's other tags, which I will be adding shortly. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio. Megapixie 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Damavand Battle Destroyer.jpg
- - uploaded by VatooVatoo (notify | contribs).
- Tagged as GFDL but appears to be scanned from a book or magazine. Uploader has been using dubious tags. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:VelocityRunning(2).png
- Fan-art licenced under GFDL of a copyrighted character. — 293.xx.xxx.xx 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Moudge Model.jpg
- - uploaded by VatooVatoo (notify | contribs).
- Posted with attribution tag, but all I can find at the source website (http://www.isna.ir/Main/Default.aspx?Lang=E) is a copyright notice. Uploader has used other dubious tags. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Moudge Class.jpg
- - uploaded by VatooVatoo (notify | contribs).
- Purportedly derived from a Google Earth image and tagged as GFDL. However, Google Earth images are not free. See http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=21422. So this is a copyvio. Uploader has been using dubious tags elsewhere. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as google earth copyvio. Megapixie 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kaman Class Shamshir missile boat.jpg
- - uploaded by VatooVatoo (notify | contribs).
- Posted with attribution tag, but all I can find at the source website (http://www.farsnews.com/English/) is a copyright notice. Uploader has used other dubious tags. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Same is true of this one: Image:Iranian nahang class submarine.jpg
--Butseriouslyfolks 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete seems unlikely a press agency would give away photos (without documenting it somewhere). Megapixie 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GhadirSubmarine.jpg
- - uploaded by VatooVatoo (notify | contribs).
- Posted with attribution tag, but all I can find at the source website (http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/AboutUs.aspx) is a copyright notice. Uploader has used other dubious tags. — Butseriouslyfolks 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mianserin.png
- - uploaded by Santoshmaurya (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete by commons:Image:Mianserin.png -- Selket Talk 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SC-93.svg.png
- Orphaned, Obsolete by commons:Image:SC-93.svg -- Selket Talk 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MariskaVeres.jpg
- - uploaded by SportsAddicted (notify | contribs).
- According to source, image is from ANP Photo, a company on the business of licensing images like this for a fee. Abu badali (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ThreatMatrix_Cast.jpg
- Images from abc.go.com are produced to enchance their website. Our use replaces the original market role for the image. Screenshots should be used whenever we need to illustrate tv fictional characters Abu badali (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Star_Trek_Archer.jpg
- Although poorly sourced, Startrek studio shots are likely to come from startrek.com. Our use in our startrek related article replaces the oritginal market role for this image. A screenshot could be used if we need to illustrate a tv/cinema ficional character like this one. Abu badali (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the original market for the image? It's possible that they are selling 8x10 prints of the image or something and we can reduce the resolution if we need to, but I don't see how a promo shot replaces the copyright holder's ability to market the image - the main purpose of it is to promote viewership of the TV show, not to sell it. Used in an article about the show or the fictional character, it cannot be replaced with a free version. Obviously, it needs to be sourced better than essentially "oh yah it probably came from Paramount", but I don't see a reason not to use it if we can adequately source it. --BigDT 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The original market is to enhance the value of webpages about this fictional character, giving the official site an unique advantage over non-official sites. --Abu badali (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the original market for the image? It's possible that they are selling 8x10 prints of the image or something and we can reduce the resolution if we need to, but I don't see how a promo shot replaces the copyright holder's ability to market the image - the main purpose of it is to promote viewership of the TV show, not to sell it. Used in an article about the show or the fictional character, it cannot be replaced with a free version. Obviously, it needs to be sourced better than essentially "oh yah it probably came from Paramount", but I don't see a reason not to use it if we can adequately source it. --BigDT 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no evidence that our use of the image detracts from the market value of the copyright. It's within our guidelines to use a single non-free image of a copyrighted character (under a fair use claim) in an article about that character, so long as the image is no larger than necessary. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: By freely using images from startrek.com, we're detracting from the site's main value: The ability to provide exclusive content. While any unofficial star-trek site can compete by writing better reviews or by building a better user interface, etc, no unofficial site is able to produce an image of a startrek actor posing in character at a studio, facing the camera. Make no mistake, this picture is an independent copyrighted work. We can't claim fair use on it unless we're talking about it. To talk about the serie's characters, use a piece of the series: a screenshot. --Abu badali (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can claim fair use, even though we're discussing the image's subject (and not the image itself). We agree that this is an independent, copyrighted work. As above, I believe that we should not consider it a violation of FUC#2 to publish an image that is published elsewhere on the web, if all other criteria are met. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is not simply that the image has been published elsewhere in the web. The problem is the purpose the image was produced and how it's used by it's copyright holder. I'm afraid you're greatly mistaken when you say we could claim fair use "even though we're discussing the image's subject ". This is exactly the "Guernica" example. --Abu badali (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is this any different from Image:Arrested Development cast promo photo.jpg, Image:Firefly cast.jpg, Image:Cheers cast photo.jpg, or Image:Buffythevampireslayer-4.jpg, all of which were used in a featured articles when they were promoted? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this the "there's more crap available" argument? I don't see much difference. --Abu badali (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, the point is that what you're calling "crap" (using still photos of TV show casts) is what the community is calling "featured" (or, at least, acceptable in the most scrutinized articles at Wikipedia). – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not everyone here cares about unfree content usage as our mission would ask for. Has the concerns raised on this ifd been discussed in the process that lead these articles to "featured" status? If no, do you believe that the fact that it wasn't discussed before implies that we shouldn't discuss it now? What's exactly the point in pointing "featured" articles with similar problems? --Abu badali (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, the point is that what you're calling "crap" (using still photos of TV show casts) is what the community is calling "featured" (or, at least, acceptable in the most scrutinized articles at Wikipedia). – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this the "there's more crap available" argument? I don't see much difference. --Abu badali (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is this any different from Image:Arrested Development cast promo photo.jpg, Image:Firefly cast.jpg, Image:Cheers cast photo.jpg, or Image:Buffythevampireslayer-4.jpg, all of which were used in a featured articles when they were promoted? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is not simply that the image has been published elsewhere in the web. The problem is the purpose the image was produced and how it's used by it's copyright holder. I'm afraid you're greatly mistaken when you say we could claim fair use "even though we're discussing the image's subject ". This is exactly the "Guernica" example. --Abu badali (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can claim fair use, even though we're discussing the image's subject (and not the image itself). We agree that this is an independent, copyrighted work. As above, I believe that we should not consider it a violation of FUC#2 to publish an image that is published elsewhere on the web, if all other criteria are met. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: By freely using images from startrek.com, we're detracting from the site's main value: The ability to provide exclusive content. While any unofficial star-trek site can compete by writing better reviews or by building a better user interface, etc, no unofficial site is able to produce an image of a startrek actor posing in character at a studio, facing the camera. Make no mistake, this picture is an independent copyrighted work. We can't claim fair use on it unless we're talking about it. To talk about the serie's characters, use a piece of the series: a screenshot. --Abu badali (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I concur with Abu. Use a screenshot if you want a picture of the character. howcheng {chat} 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NoahGray-Cabey_Heroes.jpg
- nbc.com's images are produced to enchance their website, not ours. Our use replaces the original market role of the original image. Abu badali (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Promotional material being used under fair use. - JNighthawk 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you believe images from nbc.com are "Promotional material"? --Abu badali (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The idea that using that image will stop people from visiting NBC.com/Heroes is absolutely ludicrous. --DrBat 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TheUnit_Haysbert.jpg
- images from cbs.com are produced to enhance their website, not ours. Abu badali (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Promotional material being used under fair use. - JNighthawk 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZhangZiyi_MemoirsGeisha.jpg
- sonypictures.com is not a source for promotional material. Their images are produced to enhance their site, not ours. Abu badali (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Promotional material being used under fair use. - JNighthawk 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Law&OrderCriminalIntent_Season6Cast.jpg
- nbc.com is not a source for promotional material. Abu badali (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Promotional material being used under fair use. - JNighthawk 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MerylStreep_DevilWearsPrada.jpg
- This image was produced to enchance the official website for a movie, not ours. Our use replaced the original market role for this image. A screenshot (if needed) could be used to illustrate this fictional character. Abu badali (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Promotional material being used under fair use. - JNighthawk 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:UEIN_Crest.png
- Unencyclopedic - This image is not the proper crest for this college. The college currently uses a totally different image for it's crest. The site that is listed as demonstrating that this is the proper crest no longer exists and there are there are no other valid references to where the college uses this image. Original uploader was not informed because they were banned for "Ban Evasion" and as such is no longer a member of the Wikipedia community. The link to the image on the SCIMD page could not be removed because the article is under Office protection. — 67.177.149.119 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is showing as an orphan now, so delete for that reason. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, admin action was taken on the main article where it was linked and the link to the image was removed, so it is not only unencyclopedic but an orphan that has basically no potential of ever being used anywhere else on Wikipedia. 67.177.149.119 01:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:KatieBlair.jpg
- - uploaded by PageantUpdater (notify | contribs).
- Image was produced to enhance the missteenusa.com website, and according to their terms of use, we are only welcome to make "copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only". Our use of this material replaces the original market role for this image. Abu badali (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I seriously cannot believe that Abu badali has brought this up again. I am truly flabbergasted. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali if you want to see where I'm coming from. The use of this image has already been reviewed and cleared by an admin. I suggest Abu badali stop Wikistalking myself and my edits, and leave me alone. For good measure, however, I have expanded the fair use rationale and done some expansion and repositioning on the article page. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your accusations are unfruitful. There exists any previous discussion about the concerns raised on this ifd? I'm only aware of a discussion about the replaceability of this image (as it was originally being used to illustrate how a living person looks like). --Abu badali (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment see also the lengthy discussion at Image talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg as to the use of these images. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that discussion is about replaceability, as this image was being used to illustrated a living person. This nomination is not disputing that. --Abu badali (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as fair use criteria are satisfied. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: Do you believe the criterion that says "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" is satisfied? Do you understand this image was produced to enhance the experience of missteenusa.com's users, and that it's being used to enhance the experience of wikipedia.org users? Do you call this use fair?--Abu badali (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand your rather limited view of why the image was produced. Even so, the use of the image at Wikipedia actually advances that view, as people who view the picture of this beautiful woman in the WP article are more likely to then visit missteenusa.com's website, thereby enhancing the experience of its users. And that's assuming your assessment of the original market role is accurate. I think this is an obvious case of fair use. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- People who read this beautiful woman's bio on Wikipedia and see this beautiful woman's picture, have less reasons to go to missteenusa.com. Copying content in this case makes the original less useful/necessary. --Abu badali (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your rather limited view of why the image was produced. Even so, the use of the image at Wikipedia actually advances that view, as people who view the picture of this beautiful woman in the WP article are more likely to then visit missteenusa.com's website, thereby enhancing the experience of its users. And that's assuming your assessment of the original market role is accurate. I think this is an obvious case of fair use. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Voting on this is irrelevant. Our policies have long been argued, and the shake out is that if the subject in question is alive, promotional, copyrighted shots of the person are not usable by us. Whether are hundred people say STRONG KEEP is irrelevant. --Durin 13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was previously tagged as replaceable, and I, as the deciding admin, decided that it is not replaceable. (The photo depicts her being crowned, and she will never be crowned again.) If it were only being used to depict the person, we couldn't use it, but looking at the image and how it is used in the articles shows that it is being used to depict a non-repeatable event. Anyway, this nomination is not based on whether the image is replaceable, as Abu says above several times.. It's based on whether the image replaces the market value of the image to the copyright-holder. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - while the "event" of this model being crowned is non-repeatable, it also doesn't calls for an image. The image adds no noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was previously tagged as replaceable, and I, as the deciding admin, decided that it is not replaceable. (The photo depicts her being crowned, and she will never be crowned again.) If it were only being used to depict the person, we couldn't use it, but looking at the image and how it is used in the articles shows that it is being used to depict a non-repeatable event. Anyway, this nomination is not based on whether the image is replaceable, as Abu says above several times.. It's based on whether the image replaces the market value of the image to the copyright-holder. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Since a "fair use" claim is made, we don't have to follow the terms of use. Missteenusa.com is not selling this low-resolution photograph, and I see no evidence that our use decreases the value to the copyright-holder. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: A "fair use claim" is not a blanket permission to use unfree material. The fair use rationale for this image, for instance, doesn't address the concerns raised on this ifd (thus, the nomination). Besides not addressing all points of our criteria (eg item #5: Significance), it's based on assumption like "Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder" and "Its use on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright to its holder" (that ignores the value an exclusive image gives to an website) and the assumption that what's show on the image is an "historic event". --Abu badali (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Quadell and PagentUddater. Jeffpw 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment please note the image is also being used at Miss Teen USA 2006. It certainly isn't replaceable there, and the image is highly relevant in that context. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This nomination is not disputing replaceability. --Abu badali (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not fair use under our criteria or fair use law. We are not discussing the image - we are discussing the person. See The Persistence of Memory for an example of an image actually being used correctly under fair use law and non-free policy. The of use of the website indicate in no way that they are distributing promotional material (in fact exactly the opposite). Are we potentially competing with the photographer who sold the image to the website? possibly. Image is not historic in any way shape or form - did it make the front page of a national news paper ? - no. Could it be replaced by a free image ? and the article would the article still convey the same information to the reader ? - absolutely. Megapixie 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment when I used to have access to the Miss Universe press website, I could have given that website as the source for this photo, as it came from there as well. The purpose of the photos on that website is to promote their titleholders. Unfortunately I no longer have that access, but the point remains is that from there as well, the fair use claim is valid. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. jamesgibbon 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kate.PNG
- Image is from nbc's site search.console.net, whose terms of use (follow "Home" at top left, then "terms of use" at bottom) says that the use of these images for promotional purposes can only be made after prior approval from NBC Universal: "Use of NBC Universal photographs may not be made without seeking prior approval from NBC Universal" [1]. Has Wikipedia asked for such approval? Why not use screenshots to illustrate such fictional characters? Abu badali (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. That image better illustrates the character, and no free equivalent is available. --DrBat 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment we can't ignore copyright just because the image is "better" for us. --Abu badali (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree; it illustrates key traits about Meredith (her drinking problem).- JustPhil
01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replace with smaller, lower res version. Fair use criteria are satisfied here. At 1MB it's on the large size though. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Voting on this is irrelevant. Our policies have long been argued, and the shake out is that if the subject in question is alive, promotional, copyrighted shots of the person are not usable by us. Whether are hundred people say STRONG KEEP is irrelevant. --Durin 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't an image of a living person. It's an image of a fictional character. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- So that's an image of a mannequin I see on Kate Flannery? The image on that page is not discussed in any respect. It's being used to illustrate her; thus, it's replaceable. --Durin 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a violation to use the image to illustrate the Kate Flannery article. But it's not a violation on the Meredith Palmer article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, when referring to "violation", you're only taking replaceability into account. We have 10 criteria to comply when using unfree material, not just one. This nomination doesn't concerns replaceability. --Abu badali (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a violation to use the image to illustrate the Kate Flannery article. But it's not a violation on the Meredith Palmer article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- So that's an image of a mannequin I see on Kate Flannery? The image on that page is not discussed in any respect. It's being used to illustrate her; thus, it's replaceable. --Durin 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't an image of a living person. It's an image of a fictional character. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and reduce. Any image of the character is going to be copyrighted and usable under a fair use claim. Whether the image is a screenshot or not is irrelevant. It's perfectly within our policies to use a single copyrighted image of a fictional character in an article about that character, although the image should be no larger than necessary. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: Quadell, please understand that while Fair Use law allow us to use a piece of a movie to talk about that movie, we can't use a photograph produced to enhance a webpage about a movie to enhance our webpage about that movie. This image is an independent copyrighted work, that was produced and published independently from the movie/tv-serie we're talking about in the article. NBC paid the actress to pose for this image, hired the photographer, the photographer team, etc. because they wanted to improve their website. Unless we're going to write an article about their website or abut this image, we shouldn't be using this image. Saying that any image of the character would be "usable under a fair use claim" is naive. This is akin to say this image is a "fair use image". --Abu badali (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I don't think it's correct. Both a screenshot and a still photo are copyrighted, and we can only use either under a fair use claim. There's no difference, from a copyright perspective, whether we use one or the other. So there's no reason to replace stillshots with screenshots, as you seem to advocate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- A screenshot would be a small piece of the copyrighted work being discussed while this image is a different copyrighted work produced under different circumstances for different purposes. While the later may be more convenient for us, I'm afraid fair use law would only covers the former. --Abu badali (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I don't think it's correct. Both a screenshot and a still photo are copyrighted, and we can only use either under a fair use claim. There's no difference, from a copyright perspective, whether we use one or the other. So there's no reason to replace stillshots with screenshots, as you seem to advocate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: Quadell, please understand that while Fair Use law allow us to use a piece of a movie to talk about that movie, we can't use a photograph produced to enhance a webpage about a movie to enhance our webpage about that movie. This image is an independent copyrighted work, that was produced and published independently from the movie/tv-serie we're talking about in the article. NBC paid the actress to pose for this image, hired the photographer, the photographer team, etc. because they wanted to improve their website. Unless we're going to write an article about their website or abut this image, we shouldn't be using this image. Saying that any image of the character would be "usable under a fair use claim" is naive. This is akin to say this image is a "fair use image". --Abu badali (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with a screenshot, which would serve the same purpose and actually be fair use. Megapixie 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alison_Krauss_Grand_Ole_Opry.jpg
- - uploaded by Staxringold (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree image that shows an artist performing at the Carnegie Hall, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as replaceable. She's still alive. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is not being used to depict the person; it's being used to depict a specific performance. (It's being used in the section that discusses that specific performance, and not in any section that discusses her in general or her appearance.) As a photo of a non-repeatable event, I don't think it violates our policies. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Please, read the nomination. Replaceability is not being contested. The necessity of this image is what's unclear. The question is: What noteworthy information this unfree picture adds that isn't already conveyed with text? --Abu badali (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Necessity is not a requirement in our non-free content policy. We could describe most non-free images with text instead, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh... yes, it is. It's item #5 (previously item #8). Basically, we don't get to use unfree content whenever it's useful. It must be necessary. --Abu badali (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, that criterion requires that the image "contributes significantly to an article", not that the image by necessary. Reasonable people could disagree about whether this image contributes significantly to Alison_Krauss (more than serving as a pretty decoration). – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about 3(a) - minimal use - "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Megapixie 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Necessity is not a requirement in our non-free content policy. We could describe most non-free images with text instead, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Incredibly weak rationale for use given that we have free images that show basically the same thing. We don't need the image to make the article clearer i.e. The Persistence of Memory or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, so therefore we don't need the image. Megapixie 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bremner And Revie.jpg
- CV Initially tagged as GFDL-self but uploader now admits that the image was taken from another website (but cannot remember which). In the absence of licence/source information and given the photo dates from 1973 we have to assume the worst and that it is a copyright violation. Qwghlm 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:A1GP-rnd22-CZE.png
- Unnecesssary unfree screenshot showing a A1 Grand Prix car, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveied with text. Use seems purely decorative. Abu badali (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He may have been celebrating a particular victory, but you can't tell that from the photo, so it is effectively a replaceable image of him in his car. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tawfeeqalmansoor.jpg
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image shows three man signing a document at the United Nations. Doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Use seem decorative. Abu badali (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as the historic event depicted is not even mentioned in the article, and the subject is apparently living, so any free image of the subject would suffice. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hwang-woo.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The event depicted is neither particularly historical nor germane to the article, so any free image of the subject would suffice here. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Korean-donating-egg.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seems to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text Abu badali (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:300px-LocalFregVNGaia-SaoPedroDaAfurada.svg.png
- Orphaned, Obsolete by commons:Image:LocalFregVNGaia-SaoPedroDaAfurada.svg -- Selket Talk 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Im82.jpg
- Image is back cover of this already uploaded record cover, and not used in any articles except this one, which is a duplicate of this article, also created by the same editor. — Ford MF 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Marion_indiana_1930_lynching_photo.jpg
- Accoding to caption, image is from photo agency Corbis. Abu badali (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Smithsonian and fair use criteria are satisfied. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contest: What do you mean by "fair use criteria are satisfied"? There's no fair use rationale nor verifiable source information (WP:NFCC #10) and the image use completely ignores the fact that the copyright holder (assuming it's Corbis) makes a living by licensing images like this (WP:NFCC #2). Are you sure you're familiarized with our criteria for unfree content usage? --Abu badali (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please be civil. --Butseriouslyfolks
-
- Keep. This is a photo of a unique, historic, non-repeatable event. It is only used to depict that event, in the section of the article that mentions that event. The source is Corbis, as you say. I see no evidence that the use of this photo in this article detracts from its market value. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quadell, it's getting harder to try to understand your understanding of an image's value to it's copyright holder. If you plan to publish an article about the Indiana 1930 lynching, and you want to illustrate your article with a good picture, you're lucky enough to have the option to contat Corbis, an image agency that will be happy to provide you a nice picture for a fee. --Abu badali (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not that familiar with the criteria being applied, but the photo is from my hometown. According to A Lynching In the Heartland by James H. Madison, St. Martin's Press 2001, the photo was originally taken by a Lawrence Beitler. Madison credits the photo as: (Courtesy Indiana Historical Society C7068A). It's a very commonly used photo--dozens of books, magazines, documentaries, and even a Public Enemy CD cover. There's an alternate cropping here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ThomasShippAbramSmith.jpg I suspect it's orphaned. Is it possible that Corbis doesn't own the rights and just distributes it? Let me know if I can provide any other info, or could scan it from another source or something.--Rmlucas 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Runway_diagram.png
- Orphaned, Obsolete commons:Image:Runway diagram.svg (note svg on commons) -- Selket Talk 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Glufosinateammonium.gif
- Orphaned -- Selket Talk 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- and replaced with Image:Glufosinate.svg. --Leyo 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ummon.gif
- - uploaded by Marudubshinki (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Don-Dodds Press Photo.jpg
- Orphan, unencyclopedic, absentee uploader- Punkmorten 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI_Cover-ChrisPorter.jpg
- magazine cover used to illustrated the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- This image is NOT used as a picture of the person. It is used to discuss the supposed Sports Illustrated jinx this player endured as a result of him being featured on this magazine cover. This is fair use - just like the Billy Ripken (F*ck Face) card is fair use for that article. I clearly explained this when uploading, so not sure why this was nominated for deletion (unless it was another dumb bot). It should be clear to anyone who read the article or read the image description. Anyway, hopefully this explains why I uploaded and why it should NOT be deleted. In particular, from Wikipedia:Fair Use: However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply. Otduff 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per uploader explanation above. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Looking at the article, it certainly appears that the image is being used to depict the person. It's used in the infobox at the top of the page, after all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is only in the infobox because the discussion of the jinx is in the opening paragraph and it did not look good having the image on it's own outside the infobox. Perhaps if we moved the "jinx talk" later in the article, we could move the cover image further down. Would you then agree that the image is fair use since we are discussing the SI cover and not purely to depict the basketballer? It sounds like you are only complaining of where the picture is placed and not discounting that it's use could be fair use. Is that reason enough to delete in lieu of just moving it within the article? Otduff 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - For this all "Sports Illustrated" images listed below, note the counter-example listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then 'fair use' may apply." It would be difficult for us to keep any magazine cover image used to depict the subject, except in limited circumstances. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- "except in limited circumstances" perfectly describes when we should be using unfree material in general, and not only unfree magazine cover images. As an good example, Image:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png is a magazine cover image that's notable enough to be discussed. --Abu badali (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- But it doesnt ever say it must be notable enough to have it's own article. Just to be notable enough to be discussed in the article. This is clearly the case as the article talks of his appearance on SI jinxing his career - and it is difficult to do so if you do not show the cover. Again, there are lots of other SI mag covers used for this exact same reason (just look at Sports Illustrated cover jinx).Otduff 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- "except in limited circumstances" perfectly describes when we should be using unfree material in general, and not only unfree magazine cover images. As an good example, Image:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png is a magazine cover image that's notable enough to be discussed. --Abu badali (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. This image does not increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. Thus it fails WP:NFCC #8. You already told us that he suffered from the Sports Illustrated jinx. How does showing the actual cover help me understand that more? howcheng {chat} 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI_Spink-Tyson.jpg
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree magazine cover, used only to illustrate a (POV) text mentioning the existence of the issue: "This fight was featured on the cover of the July 4, 1988, issue of Sports Illustrated with an iconic image of Tyson towering over the defeated Spinks". Any evidence it's "iconic"? Abu badali (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It does not appear iconic to me. It's also not being used. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI-AffirmedKentuckyDerby.jpg
- - uploaded by Handicapper (notify | contribs).
- unfree magazine cover used o illustrate the horse (yes, horse) depicted on the cover. Abu badali (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The horse is deceased. No new photo can be taken to show the subject of the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)- Contest: Not to kick a dead horse but... Irreplaceability is just the First of our 10 Non-free content criteria. I don't see how the poor animals ultimate fate frees us from the obligation to respect Sports Illustrated's copyright. --Abu badali (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI1996_West_Side_Story.jpg
- unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover that is not event mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Non-free content counter-example dealing with magazine covers. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI1987Bo.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate a brief text passage that mentions the existence of the magazine issue. Abu badali (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unsure. It is mentioned in the article, as Abu says, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough to justify the image's use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI-SunnysHalo-Derby.jpg
- - uploaded by Handicapper (notify | contribs).
- unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the biographical article on the horse (yes, the horse) depicted on the cover. Abu badali (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Non-free content counter-example dealing with magazine covers. This applies to all subsequent magazine cover images listed below. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI-Cruguet-Slew-Belmont.jpg
- - uploaded by Handicapper (notify | contribs).
- unfree image of a magazine's cover being use to illustrate the bigraphical articles on the jockey and the horse depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SI1998_Doug_Flutie.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover that is not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIKyleTurley.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover being used to illustrate the article about the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIJimHarbaugh.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover being used to illustrate the article about the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIIckeyWoods.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover being used to illustrate an article about the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIGordonBerensen.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that is not even mentioned in none of the articles the image is used in Abu badali (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIDougWilliams.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the biography of the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIDesmondHoward.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the bio on the person depited on the cover Abu badali (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SICover_StevePrefontaine.jpg
- - uploaded by MisterHand (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the bio of the person depicted Abu badali (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIToddBlackledge.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SITestaverde1987.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SISteveWalsh.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that's not even mentioned in the aritlcles the image is used in Abu badali (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIShula1993.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SISammyWinder.jpg
- - uploaded by Phbasketball6 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SIWarner1999.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that is not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fhm.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used in a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadell (talk • contribs)
[edit] Image:Frank_Joseph_Thomas.jpg
- - uploaded by Colin_Kimbrell (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used in a bio Abu badali (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elliottsmithmagnetcover.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that is not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ellsworth_Vines_Time_Cover.jpg
- - uploaded by Hayford_Peirce (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that's not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time_10may1926.jpg
- - uploaded by Ctatkinson (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that's not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article is on John Hayes Hammond and his image is on the cover of the May 10, 1926 issue of Time. Hammond is also the cover story of this issue of Time, thereby demonstrating the world's interest in Hammond as a subject. I believe this to be of interest to anyone researching Hammond and I think it would be a big loss to Hammond's Wikipedia article to loose his Time cover image.
- Delete unless we discuss the cover directly in terms of the art work - we cannot claim fair use of the image. We already have a photograph of the man, and an external link to the time story would suffice. Megapixie 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time_2004_poty.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used solely outside of the Main namespace Abu badali (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time_Ambassador_Franks.jpg
- Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that's not even mentioned in the article Abu badali (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time_Bhopal.jpg
- nnecessary, non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used to illustrate the event depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not being used in a fair use context. Megapixie 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1-Heptanol.png
- Obsolete by Image:1-Heptanol.svg -- Selket Talk 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- No objection as uploader. --Ed (Edgar181) 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep the PNG file. It's clearer than the SVG; also the SVG file appears to violate the chemistry structure guidelines by using non-standard settings. Walkerma 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Myristicin.gif
- - uploaded by Morninggloryseed (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete Image:Myristicin.svg -- Selket Talk 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fgm-148a.jpg
- - uploaded by Gmarine3000 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete Image:Javelin3.jpg -- Selket Talk 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ButtercupFestival.gif
- - uploaded by Marudubshinki (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Queen_Square.JPG
- Obsoleted by Image:QueenSquare(Dartmouth).jpg, higher quality, clearer image of the building. — hfx_chris 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
