Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 30

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:Bajoran wormhole.jpg

Image:Bajoran wormhole.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Johnnyfog (notify | contribs).

• Image claims to be a screenshot from television series, but source provided is that of unknown origin promotional image. Delete or replace with a screencap that is less infringing, as this is the complete work, and a screencap is just a portion. This has been done with all character images and all ship images found, this should be no different. Ejfetters (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - That could be a cropped version of a screencap from DS9. It's very low resolution and it would be very difficult to distinguish the difference from a similarly low quality publicity shot/screenshot. Cumulus Clouds 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Cumulus Clouds. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• The tag on it says it is a promotional image. Ejfetters 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my bad - click on the source for the image - the URL source from memory alpha states that it is a promotional image. Just needs to be replaced with a screencap. Ejfetters 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • At this resolution, I believe that the difference between a promotional image and a screencap is somewhat trivial. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as long as we allow fair use images for such a purpose, I believe this falls under fair use, especially given the low resolution of the screencap. If anyone disagrees, I suggest cropping out the wormhole, and posting only that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• • All other promotional images of characters and ships have been deleted and discussed here, because the "released for publicity" is not known for a fact, and the screencaps are less infringing, as they are only a portion of the entire work (the episode) and the shot here is the entire work. I don't see what the problem with just getting a screencap from the show would be, like was done for all major characters from all 5 series, along with all the major ships/station were replaced. This is the reason they were nominated. The tag on the source itself says it is promotional, so that shouldn't raise any doubt that it is promotional. Ejfetters (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• But the concern is that it would probably look exactly the same (to anyone, including Paramount), so why go through the effort of doing that when we have this one right here? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Doesn't matter what the concern is, this is a promotional image posing as a screencap. As it is promotional it may appear different in a screencap, therefore this should be replaced. Ship images were replaced with images that bear the same resemblance as well, don't see why this one would be any different. Ejfetters (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this image is not without concerns, and though I would prefer an unambiguous screenshot be used instead, there is no clear NFCC policy violation and no consensus to delete. Kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:N12453669 31723401 9940.png

Image:N12453669 31723401 9940.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hmwith (notify | contribs).

• UE, LQ, imho. --kingboyk 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

hmwith speedy deleted the image per G7.

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

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Mnie01.jpg

Image:Mnie01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PunisherWolf (notify | contribs).

• Rationaled to "illustrates the episode in question and aids commentary on the plot outline." This image of the titular character does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic ("Pilot"), nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#8) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - is being used in explanation of the event, and to illustrate topic. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is, but it isn't necessary to do so, especially with copyrighted material. How does this meet the mister of WP:NFCC#8? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure how to deal with these sorts of images. On the one hand, we allow CD covers to be used in articles on the CD, even if the cover itself is not mentioned in the article. The idea seems to be "This cover is the primary means of identifying the CD, so even though it's not an iconic image or used in critical commentary, and even though this cover is never even discussed, the cover represents the CD, which is discussed." The the other hand, many other types of images (e.g. press images) are only used if they are iconic and discussed. This seems to be an inbetween situation. On the one hand, a screenshot is a good way to identify an episode, even if the particular screenshot itself is not discussed. On the other hand, it is not the indisputably primary way of signifying the episode. I would lean toward deleting all screencaps that are not noteworthy and discussed, but I'm not sure where consensus is on this interpretation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don’t want to get into the under-the-table exceptions to the WP:NFCC too much, and this isn’t representative of my opinions just my interpretation of “how it works”, but in short: CD covers, movie posters, TV show intertitles, and et cetera effectively ‘’’are’’’ the work itself in an image. They encapsulate the entirety of that work as the “public face” of it, if you will. Now, comparing TV episode screencaps to those examples I just gave only, the problem that springs to mind is that there is no specific, universally accepted given image for an episode that encapsulates that episode to everybody. That’s the difference as I see it.

    Now, speaking above-board, with regard to the practices and policies in place: An image (or for the purposes, “this image”) isn’t necessary in this article or for the rationale claimed. It’s a copyrighted screencap of Earl Hickey in a hospital bed with a neck brace; I’m aware that this is the scene and/or act wherein the entirety of My Name Is Earl is based off of, but showing it doesn’t significantly increase the readers' understanding that “while recovering in the hospital bed, Earl sees Carson Daly on TV speaking about his belief in karma.” That prose is as pertinent and understandable if you omit the image depicting the same. WP:NFCC#3a and #8. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Most screenshots used from movies and TV episodes in a similar fashion to the way this screenshot was used have been deleted in the past. I've seen no emerging consensus to change this -Nv8200p talk 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was The two images below were deleted If the subject in the photo is the uploader, then he was not the original copyright holder. That would have been the photographer. The uploader would have no right to release the image to the public domain unless the images were work for hire or copyright was transferred, either of which would require written documentation from the copyright holder. -Nv8200p talk 13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mart-Sander-and-Swing-Swind.jpg

Image:Mart-Sander-and-Swing-Swind.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zanderz (notify | contribs).

• Delete No free or fair use rationale cited Jack1956 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question: The image summary says that uploader is the copyright holder and releases the image to the public domain. How can we show that the uploader is the copyright holder? -- Ssilvers 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Zanderz can provide the original images with the metadata intact. This would not be conclusive proof, but it would help his argument. As it is, those three pictures together represent the work of a professional photographer who is known to or works with Mr. Sander and it would be very unlikely that such a person would release those images into the public domain. These images are therefore likely copyright violations and should be deleted. This applies to the rest of the images uploaded by Zanderz. Cumulus Clouds 02:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm thinking that if the photographer wouldn't have released these works into public domain, nor would he have shared his original digitals with others. The metadata is not conclusive proof, but I should think that it's enough. What other proof can he supply?_Jame§^ugrono 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: These could very well be (c) Zanderz and released into the public domain as he says. Is there any evidence of a copyvio? Has anyone tried e-mailing Zanderz about this? If not, I'd say either keep or move to PUI. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through Zanderz's contributions and logs, I'm reasonably certain that Zanderz is Mart Sander. Admins can view the deleted version of Image:Sanderi-näitus,-kevad-2006.jpg, for instance, which shows the same person illustrated by the Mart Sander article standing casually (goofily) next to some art masterpieces -- obviously a personal photo. If Zanderz is Sanders, as I suspect, then we should take him at his word that these images are PD, and we should undelete his previously-deleted uploads. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put a request on his talk page and others have requsted copyright info on the article's talkpage. No information or proof of ownership of the copyright has been forthcoming from anybody. If Zanderz owns the copyright then he needs to declare it like everybody else has to. In addition, even if Zanderz is Mart Sanders, it doesn't mean that he owns the copyright to the images. That surely rests with the photographer until demonstrated otherwise. Jack1956 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Zanderz is obviously Mart Sander. Does that mean that we can restore the images? I always thought that they were useful, especially the one with Queen Elizabeth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Wiki Policy, but if Zanderz Is Mart Sander then isn't he only allowed to edit articles about himself to change errors, rather than enhancing the article with facts and pictures of himself? At the very least, it raises concerns about WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Jack1956 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You can write about yourself of Wikipedia, although it is an obvious conflict of interest. If you don't provided verifiable references, what you write can be deleted, and various tags go up to warn readers that the editor had a COI, etc. That is what happened on this article: Zanderz added content to the article, and then several of us did a referencing project and deleted the information that wasn't adequately referenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that. If Zanderz is Sander, why doesn't he just add the licensing information and save the pictures? Mart, if you're reading this, just do it. Jack1956 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he did. He added a tag which says "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. . ." That's good enough, isn't it? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have retired from Wikipedia. If you look at his edit history, he put up three articles and the images and then scrammed. So, assuming that he's not coming back (and certainly not reading this page), what to do? I'm sorry to see the QEII image gone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no violent objection to the QEII image being reinstated as the lead image on the Sander article if the others are deleted. Jack1956 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zanderz-by-Jarek-glamour.jpg

Image:Zanderz-by-Jarek-glamour.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zanderz (notify | contribs).

• Delete No free or fair use rationale cited Jack1956 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question: The image summary says that uploader is the copyright holder and releases the image to the public domain. How can we show that the uploader is the copyright holder? -- Ssilvers 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If Zanderz supplied a version which had metadata intact, it would be very convincing evidence._Jame§^ugrono 12:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Another question: Would this image qualify as fair use under a "publicity" photo rationale? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  No. It is a non-free image of a living person being usaed in a decorative manner. There would have to be significant commentary on the image itself to qualify for fair use and get passed WP:NFCC. -Nv8200p talk 12:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• As above, I believe this image to be PD, and the uploader to be Mart Sander. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• See my comment above, also. Jack1956 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 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.