Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 20

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:

- Withdrawn - Fair enough - FUR added to the image page - Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TGPseal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Randon16serrano (notify | contribs).

• Logo of a fraternity (see here) - no fair use rationale and, as it is likely copyrighted, cannot be public domain. No listed licence though the original was listed as PD-author Peripitus (Talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simply correct the licensing, add a FUR for use on the page in question, and remove it from unnecessary pages. It doesn't need to be removed from Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion was: Delete, exists separately and is only part of the cover. Dreadstar † 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tagged as non-free book cover, but not used for identifying the book; it's in fact only part of a book cover, hence not suitable for that purpose; and the full book cover exists separately already. This one is used to illustrate the fictional character depicted in the graphics, but the graphics is so small and of so poor quality that it adds nothing to the understanding of the character – it's just a generic young man in vaguely pre-modern clothing (holding some unidentified, oversized phallus-symbol-like object.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Deleted.  Orphaned, no clear value. WilyD 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:J.D_reciting_Shakespeare´s_18th_sonnet_Shall_I_compare_you_to_a_summer´s_day.JPG

Image:J.D_reciting_Shakespeare´s_18th_sonnet_Shall_I_compare_you_to_a_summer´s_day.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joao_Nsingui (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Kept - looks likely to be moved to commons, the subject has an article and this image is, for some purposes, better than the other free version here - Image:Jean-Georges Vongerichten.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JGV.jpg

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

• Low quality, Orphaned Nv8200p talk 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at a smaller image size, this image could be very useful. The subject of the image is notable enough to have his own article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion was: Keep per nominee and uploader's comments Non Admin closure — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cubs1932.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wjmummert (notify | contribs).

• Incorrect license, and use doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding of the articles. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• License selected is the same as that used for many other sports teams logos found here on Wikipedia. Logo pre-dates 1940. If some fine tuning is needed I am in agreement. I also dispute User:PhilKnight's claim that the logo does not meaningfully add to the article. Please note that "vintage logo's" are a common trait among nearly every Major North American professional sports teams article here on Wikipedia and are quite relevant to the article itself. They show the transformation of the team's image thru the 140 year history. If needed, I have also created a replica of this on my computer (basically a drawing) that does not require any license, though I did initially tag this and one other logo incorrectly by mistake. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination - instead of claiming that you owned the image, and released it into the public domain, you are now asserting fair use, which makes a lot more sense. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. As I mentioned, I had uploaded about 6 photos I took at games and then did these 4 logos, on two of them I never changed the license. My bad. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Close ASAP per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Delete - NFCC#2 is clear on this "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - this image was created by a commercial entity for sale. If we take their image and don't pay but allow others to view, leach etc it then this is clearly replacing the market role of the image. If there were significant commentary ABOUT the image itself (not the scene it depicts) then the debate would have a different character. As a side note the image in the article appears purely decorative, and would so fail WP:NFCC#8 as not adding significantly to reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 06:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• NFCC#2: A Picture copied from a news source to illustrate the event it shows. Not fair use. Damiens.rf 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' -- Nominator has made a number of nominations under NFCC#2 -- but does not seem to respect the "replacability" factor in determining whether an image is fair use. An image captured seconds after a bomb assassinates a political leader is not replace-able. The "fair use rationale" on this image makes plain that the image is not replaceable. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The last "C" on "NFCC" stands for "Criteria", what means that you have to fulfill all of the 10 intens, and not just some at your choice. I concede the image is irreplaceable. I never disputed that. --Damiens.rf 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Damiens is right. An image has to be fair use first, and irreplaceable on top of that. The first is a legal condition, the second is internal wikipedia rule. If it competes with the original market role, it's not fair use; its irreplaceability then makes no difference. In fact, it makes things worse: the more irreplaceable, the higher the commercial value, hence, the higher the damage we cause by stealing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but it seems to me that the nominator is not respecting WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground. Nominator is making practically zero effort to offer meaningful explanations. Nominator nominated dozens of images today, apparently without making the effort to read the good-faith explanations uploaders offered. I had to wikify NFCC#2 -- nominator did not see fit to do so.
  • Fair use is complicated. I think those who really think they have an understanding of why images don't qualify for fair use have a good faith obligation to at least try to help good faith uploaders understand why the image doesn't qualify. Future Perfect, your politely expressed explanation seems to me to be at odds with other apparently well-informed explanations of what is and isn't "fair use". Could you please explain what kind of image would qualify for fair use under your definition -- or offer some examples? Because, it seems to me, that the claim that the owner of the original rights might, potentially, find some commercial value in the image applies to every single image -- and thus, under the interpretation you just offered, no image could ever qualify as fair use. Geo Swan (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answered in next section below. Just noting here that this is in fact a Reuters news agency photo. Commercial news agencies are among the worst cases of NfCC#2 violations. The owners of this image actually live on commercially licensing these images out to people for doing with them exactly what we do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how it fails WP:NFCC#2: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." What market role does this image replace? News organizations that wish to use such an image would undoubtedly make sure to attribute the image to the source and pay for such a use. Reputable publishers would certainly not use it otherwise. Anyone who wants such an image and intends to use it without the copyrighter's consent can get it from Rueters and use it as they see fit. This criteria, IMHO, pertains to the use of other encyclopedias' images primarily (as Wikipedia would be taking away from that market share, it would detrimentally impact their bottom line, ergo, not fair use). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It replaces the original market role because Wikipedia is not paying. If Britannica wanted to use this image, they would have to pay. If podunk newspaper wanted to use this image, they would have to pay. Wikipedia cannot simply use AP photos for free when it is convenient to Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Delete - as mainly being a fair-use image that does not significantly add to reader's understanding (NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17 Afghans, determined to not have been enemy combatants, released on April 20, 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs).

• Picture belonging to a news source, used in many article, purportedly illustrating an historic event, but just showing some men's faces. Fails NFCC#2 and #8. Damiens.rf 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dispute nomination -- We are all supposed to assume good faith. So I am going to assume this nomination was well-intentioned. Nevertheless it wildly mischaracterizes this photo -- where it was taken, and how it is used.
  • The record shows the USA seized these men, and held them, for years, without laying charges against them. This is literally unprecedented.
  • The record shows the USA seized them, and held them in secret custody. In many cases their families didn't know what had happened to them. Despotic, totalitarian countries do this. They call the process of being "disappeared". When despotic, totalitarian countries do it we recognize it as a terror tactic. This too is literally unprecedented.
  • After legal challenges that went all the way to the Supreme Court the Bush Presidency was forced to provide the captives with an opportunity to hear, and attempt to refute, the allegations used to justify their detention. This too is literally unprecedented.
  • Nominator asserts that the picture is "...just showing some men's faces."
  • Bzzzt. Afghanistan had a ceremony marking setting free these 17 innocent men. This ceremony was addressed by the Chief Justice of Afghanistan's Supreme Court. Ceremonies addressed by a nation's Chief Justice, reported in the International Press, are historic events. Period.
  • The Chief Justice of the Afghan Supreme Court spoke at their release ceremony. He warned the men not to talk about the abuse they suffered while in US custody. I added this image to the articles about the four men who chose to discount the Chief Justice's warning and use the release ceremony to speak about camp conditions. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All this is very important and interesting. But the interesting thing is just the event the image is connected to. The image itself helps nothing in understanding the event. The image really is just "some men's faces". It does not show what the US did to them, or anything else that would be of interest. And the point about the commercial news source is crucial too, it clearly fails NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote in the section above, I would appreciate a fuller explanation of how any image could be considered "fair use" since it seems to me the argument that the original copyright owner might find commercial interest is going to apply to every single image. Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are image sources where a potential of commercial exploitation is less severe (e.g. images published by an academic as part of an academic journal article, or images that have already been used as publicity photos by their owners). But most crucially, the commercial angle loses its importance as soon as our use of the image is clearly "transformative", especially if and where we use them to review and analyse the work of the copyright owner himself (e.g. in discussing the creative style of a photograph). That's what "fair use" is really for. But in the present case, we are just doing what any other commercial news or politics-related publication would also do with it: show it to illustrate something other than the image itself. Others have to pay for doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, no offense, but I find your distinction between the potential commercial value of images belonging to academics, as opposed to professional photographers, unconvincing. Nothing prevents an academic selling a photo to a news service, or using it in another publication, for which they received payment. Geo Swan (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I was just thinking of examples like this, where any commercial value is clearly secondary to whatever else the author would do with it. In any case, the point is, the commercial news agencies are out. There's an old, very solid consensus about that; not sure if it's documented in some policy page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to see that consensus. Please provide a link. Also, if such a consensus is readily apparent, it should be codified into a guideline or policy to reduce ambiguity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NFCC8. This does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the topic. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Keep - Nominators legitimate issue has been addressed - Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nie Haisheng gets out of reentry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qiq (notify | contribs).

• No rationale explaining why is it ok to use this image from a news source. Damiens.rf 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rationale added. This cannot possibly be replicated. The government news source is the only organization permitted to take pictures. Using it to illustrate the event in question only is appropriate under fair use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bourbon Dolphin sinking.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zntrip (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted image copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's from a news source, the picture is credited to Her Majesty's Coastguard. No copyrights are being violated. – Zntrip 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Uploader has made a good faith attempt to explain why this image qualifies as fair use, and nominator has not seen fit to offer the uploader's good faith attempt at explanation a meaningful reply. Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a unique situation and an irreplaceable image. It is an appropriate application of "fair use". — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Not sure if this satisfies NFCC8, but since it is under crown copyright our use is probably acceptable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- Delete - I've tracked down the original image and it seems to be an Associated Press photo by a John Mitchell - clearly fails fair use as it is used nowhere - Peripitus (Talk) 13:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Image:Giant Starfish.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SteveSims (notify | contribs).

• Source url is not working. Image is not used in any article. Damiens.rf 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- If I understand the policy correctly "fair use" images have to be included in an article to remain on the wikipedia. But public domain images do not. The uploader asserted that this is a public domain image. The uploader asserted that the web-page it was copied from credited an agency of the US Federal government. The image shows two reseearchers on a research vessel. If the photographer was a student the image would not be PD. But I strongly suggest this is an instance where the nominator should have assumed good faith and assumed that the uploader had been honest when they asserted that the image had been credited to a US Federal Agency. The wikipedia and the commons must contain tens of thousands of public domain images where the original site where it was uploaded from has expired. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This image is a work of the US government, and is thus in the public domain. Though the source URL doesn't work, I'm sure other sources are available. When this happens, look for another link before nominating the image for deletion. And welcome to Wikipedia! :D SteveSims (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite its label, this is not the work of a U.S. government entity. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is headquartered in New Zealand. As such the image is copyrighted. Furthermore, the link is dead and the source of this image cannot be verified. Delete it ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk

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.