The result of the discussion was: Delete. I've spent a lot of time considering the points made in this discussion. What started off as a probable NFCC#1 (replaceable image) reasoned claim has moved over to an NFCC#8 (contextual significance) based discussion. The move came as a free image of Snowden became available so any claim of using this image to identify Snowden would automatically fail (not this was ever claimed to be the rationale for using the image), but it does negate some of the keep statements made in this discussion. The same applies to the discussion that took place at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/June as this was about using the image as an identifier of Snowden only.
So it seems to fall into the following situation. Snowden's identity was first made public in The Guardian, does an image of him in a large (half page) banner on the front page add contextual significance to the article or can the same context adequately be conveyed in words alone? In my opinion the image doesn't add contextual significance. The significance of the Guardian's involvement is being the publication in which his identity is first revealed and Snowden's explanation of why he wants his identity revealed. Correctly, for an image where fair use is claimed, it has been uploaded as a low resolution image. But because of this low resolution only the words "I can't allow the US government to destroy privacy and basic liberties" are easily readable. That statement isn't about who he is and why he wanted to be identified but about his motives for doing what he has done and the image does not add significance to the text of the article. The mismatch between the article text and the information conveyed by the image leads me to conclude that this image fails NFCC#8. NtheP ( talk) 22:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Use does not comply with non-free use criteria: It was uploaded for use in a biography infobox. Newspaper front pages can only be used in the newspaper article to describe the look; no use of non-free images of living people is permitted on WP Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Original research, and also promotes a non-notable fringe theory. No utility. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
These images need two licences: a non-free licence for the toy and a free licence from the photographer. Normally, these are indicated using {{ Photo of art}}. In this case, we are missing the photographer's licence. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Replaced by File:Jolla logo.svg. No longer needed. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
2008 Portuguese recording of "Do-Re-Mi" used in The Sound of Music under a claim of use. This use unquestionably fails WP:NFCC#8. B ( talk) 12:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Second non-free image used to identify an individual on his article, when one will suffice. No commentary or unique rationale for the inclusion of an extra image. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ( talk) 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
This image violates WP:NFCC, items #1, #3 and #8 because:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
19:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused, very low quality, orphaned to File:John T. Sheridan.jpg on Commons Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. I've spent a lot of time considering the points made in this discussion. What started off as a probable NFCC#1 (replaceable image) reasoned claim has moved over to an NFCC#8 (contextual significance) based discussion. The move came as a free image of Snowden became available so any claim of using this image to identify Snowden would automatically fail (not this was ever claimed to be the rationale for using the image), but it does negate some of the keep statements made in this discussion. The same applies to the discussion that took place at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/June as this was about using the image as an identifier of Snowden only.
So it seems to fall into the following situation. Snowden's identity was first made public in The Guardian, does an image of him in a large (half page) banner on the front page add contextual significance to the article or can the same context adequately be conveyed in words alone? In my opinion the image doesn't add contextual significance. The significance of the Guardian's involvement is being the publication in which his identity is first revealed and Snowden's explanation of why he wants his identity revealed. Correctly, for an image where fair use is claimed, it has been uploaded as a low resolution image. But because of this low resolution only the words "I can't allow the US government to destroy privacy and basic liberties" are easily readable. That statement isn't about who he is and why he wanted to be identified but about his motives for doing what he has done and the image does not add significance to the text of the article. The mismatch between the article text and the information conveyed by the image leads me to conclude that this image fails NFCC#8. NtheP ( talk) 22:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Use does not comply with non-free use criteria: It was uploaded for use in a biography infobox. Newspaper front pages can only be used in the newspaper article to describe the look; no use of non-free images of living people is permitted on WP Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Original research, and also promotes a non-notable fringe theory. No utility. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
These images need two licences: a non-free licence for the toy and a free licence from the photographer. Normally, these are indicated using {{ Photo of art}}. In this case, we are missing the photographer's licence. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Replaced by File:Jolla logo.svg. No longer needed. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
2008 Portuguese recording of "Do-Re-Mi" used in The Sound of Music under a claim of use. This use unquestionably fails WP:NFCC#8. B ( talk) 12:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Second non-free image used to identify an individual on his article, when one will suffice. No commentary or unique rationale for the inclusion of an extra image. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ( talk) 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
This image violates WP:NFCC, items #1, #3 and #8 because:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
19:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused, very low quality, orphaned to File:John T. Sheridan.jpg on Commons Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply