Adelaide Panorama
Beautiful image taken from that masterplanned town of Adelaide, Australia. Quite striking.
- Nominate and Support. Political Mind 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose While the first page of media.southaustralia.com says the images are 'copyright-free', their terms say otherwise, with things like "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." The image's copyright status is dubious, very dubious. Kevin_b_er 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just like to point out that it is not being used for commercial, business or corporate purposes. Political Mind 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Wikipedia and Commons are commercial uses, and require free commercial licensing. This image should be deleted. -- moondigger 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can I just point you to the
Wikipedia article, where it distinctly says in the box at the top right "Commercial: No". Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization, and a
charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an
Oppose from me. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a good explanation of why we don't accept non-commercial licences. This photo is not elligible for FP. -- liquidGhoul 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia print editions are considered commercial use, even if the online version isn't. Regardless, all images used on Wikipedia and Commons are required to have free commercial licenses, with the exception of those that meet certain requirements and fall under fair use. This doesn't meet those requirements. -- moondigger 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can I just point you to the
Wikipedia article, where it distinctly says in the box at the top right "Commercial: No". Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization, and a
charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an
- Oppose not big enough either -- Childzy talk contribs 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Way too small. Aperent copyright issues. -- Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose and delete. Even if Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, re-users are allowed to use Wikipedia content commercially. The image's copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. - Mgm| (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, incompatible with GFDL - and why so small? -- Cyde↔Weys 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. A very attractive and well composed image. Unfortunately, Adelaide comes across as nothing special. -- Philopedia 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted - removed as this is ineligible for promotion. Raven4x4x 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Adelaide Panorama
Beautiful image taken from that masterplanned town of Adelaide, Australia. Quite striking.
- Nominate and Support. Political Mind 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose While the first page of media.southaustralia.com says the images are 'copyright-free', their terms say otherwise, with things like "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." The image's copyright status is dubious, very dubious. Kevin_b_er 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just like to point out that it is not being used for commercial, business or corporate purposes. Political Mind 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Wikipedia and Commons are commercial uses, and require free commercial licensing. This image should be deleted. -- moondigger 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can I just point you to the
Wikipedia article, where it distinctly says in the box at the top right "Commercial: No". Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization, and a
charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an
Oppose from me. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a good explanation of why we don't accept non-commercial licences. This photo is not elligible for FP. -- liquidGhoul 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia print editions are considered commercial use, even if the online version isn't. Regardless, all images used on Wikipedia and Commons are required to have free commercial licenses, with the exception of those that meet certain requirements and fall under fair use. This doesn't meet those requirements. -- moondigger 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can I just point you to the
Wikipedia article, where it distinctly says in the box at the top right "Commercial: No". Wikipedia is a
non-profit organization, and a
charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an
- Oppose not big enough either -- Childzy talk contribs 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Way too small. Aperent copyright issues. -- Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose and delete. Even if Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, re-users are allowed to use Wikipedia content commercially. The image's copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. - Mgm| (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, incompatible with GFDL - and why so small? -- Cyde↔Weys 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. A very attractive and well composed image. Unfortunately, Adelaide comes across as nothing special. -- Philopedia 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted - removed as this is ineligible for promotion. Raven4x4x 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)