No copyright permission given by copyright holder. This photo was taken by a newspaper photograhper and was found on the web and taken without permission.
I should have been more specific. In my opinion it falls foul of counterexample 5: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo."
Haukur20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although the photo may illustrate the subject, a reporter took this photo as part of his job, and part of his salary. No one asked him if we could use it, no one asked him if he would mind if someone takes his photo for free. If an effort was made than I would see how it could be included, but people are taking advantage of just looking around Yahoo or Google images and taking photos that follow a subject line and using Fair Use.--
David Foster20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep as it appears that the logo has now been removed. Please consider, if a problem with an image/page/anything can be solved without deletion, solving it rather than risking losing otherwise good content.
BigDT04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep as it appears that the logo has now been removed. Please consider, if a problem with an image/page/anything can be solved without deletion, solving it rather than risking losing otherwise good content.
BigDT04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete: One of them obviously has to go. The fair-use rationale assumes the use of low-resolution images, so we should remove the larger of the two. --
Sakurambo桜ん坊10:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The usual bullshit. No wonder I left this place in frustration and no wonder so many other top class contributors have done so also, including professional academics, in the last few months. People who don't know what they are doing, and know nothing about the topic, know zilch about the law on fair use, and can't be arsed bothering to check first, are like a cancer in this place.
FearÉIREANN\
(caint)19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Hanrendar (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Likely a copyvio. The uploader claims to have taken this photo, but it looks more like a media photo. It was used on
[1] several months before being uploaded here. Another version of that same image is used here
[2] so it would seem to be a media photo.
BigDT03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete: The image at deseretnews.com (260x224 pixels) is actually larger than the one uploaded here. So Hanrendar is expecting us to believe that he/she cropped and scaled this image to exactly the same dimensions as the version published at burntorangenation.com (167x189 pixels). If Hanrendar can provide the original image (at least 1024 pixels wide) then keep. Otherwise delete. --
Sakurambo桜ん坊11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Daniel Case (notify |
contribs). This and all following NY state highway .pngs are orphans, no longer needed now that we switched from routeboxny to the standard road infobox, and have been superseded by .svgs on Commons—
Daniel Case19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
No copyright permission given by copyright holder. This photo was taken by a newspaper photograhper and was found on the web and taken without permission.
I should have been more specific. In my opinion it falls foul of counterexample 5: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo."
Haukur20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although the photo may illustrate the subject, a reporter took this photo as part of his job, and part of his salary. No one asked him if we could use it, no one asked him if he would mind if someone takes his photo for free. If an effort was made than I would see how it could be included, but people are taking advantage of just looking around Yahoo or Google images and taking photos that follow a subject line and using Fair Use.--
David Foster20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep as it appears that the logo has now been removed. Please consider, if a problem with an image/page/anything can be solved without deletion, solving it rather than risking losing otherwise good content.
BigDT04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep as it appears that the logo has now been removed. Please consider, if a problem with an image/page/anything can be solved without deletion, solving it rather than risking losing otherwise good content.
BigDT04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete: One of them obviously has to go. The fair-use rationale assumes the use of low-resolution images, so we should remove the larger of the two. --
Sakurambo桜ん坊10:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The usual bullshit. No wonder I left this place in frustration and no wonder so many other top class contributors have done so also, including professional academics, in the last few months. People who don't know what they are doing, and know nothing about the topic, know zilch about the law on fair use, and can't be arsed bothering to check first, are like a cancer in this place.
FearÉIREANN\
(caint)19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Hanrendar (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Likely a copyvio. The uploader claims to have taken this photo, but it looks more like a media photo. It was used on
[1] several months before being uploaded here. Another version of that same image is used here
[2] so it would seem to be a media photo.
BigDT03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete: The image at deseretnews.com (260x224 pixels) is actually larger than the one uploaded here. So Hanrendar is expecting us to believe that he/she cropped and scaled this image to exactly the same dimensions as the version published at burntorangenation.com (167x189 pixels). If Hanrendar can provide the original image (at least 1024 pixels wide) then keep. Otherwise delete. --
Sakurambo桜ん坊11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Daniel Case (notify |
contribs). This and all following NY state highway .pngs are orphans, no longer needed now that we switched from routeboxny to the standard road infobox, and have been superseded by .svgs on Commons—
Daniel Case19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply