February 27
File:Rohit-khattar.jpg
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Rohit-khattar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dipeshsidana ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:50, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Dykeasymodetab.png
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Dykeasymodetab.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ameliorate! ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:52, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Stuartlockwood.jpg
- 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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Stuartlockwood.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Snbritishfreak ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unclear copyright status, no verifiable source, may not be PD-Iraq as claimed FASTILY 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it's really a screenshot it might fall under "It is a photographic or cinematic work that is not compositive (artistic in nature) first published before 1 January 1999" given that the Gulf War was in 1990-1991, and I don't think that a screengrab from a television (propaganda) news program is going to have a more precise source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that this source is not verifiable, which means that the copyright status (PD-Iraq) cannot be verified. Additionally, it's not even clear this is a screenshot as claimed (the image has a black border). - FASTILY 06:51, 9 March 2018 (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.
File:CuevaDeLaOlla,Paquime,ChihuahuaMexico.png
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:CuevaDeLaOlla,Paquime,ChihuahuaMexico.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ancheta Wis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
PNG derived from JPG; available as JPG as higher quality: File:CuevaOlla.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:02, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Danko D Georgiev.JPG
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Danko Georgiev ( talk) 15:06, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:El Portal de El Yunque, at night, 1997.jpg
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:El Portal de El Yunque, at night, 1997.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MaxToroMattei ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Delete as replaceable fair use. The building still exists, so there's no reason to use a non-free photo of it. The photographer appears to be the uploader, so if they relicense the photo to a free licnese it likely could be kept. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 18:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominiation, fails a strict reading of WP:NFCCP#1. Unless the author is willing to relicense it, it fails our policies. ALH ( talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (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.
File:Leon Russell-1980.jpg
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Leon Russell-1980.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
no evidence that reverse side of image was blank Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I own the original photo. It's blank. I can send it to you if you want, if you mail it back.-- Light show ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, I have about 100 more musician publicity photos like this one, all from the late 1970s to early 1980s. They have the person's name and record company on the front, are all blank on the reverse, and all PD. After a quick look at the lead photos for some bios, like Lulu, Rod Stewart, Elvis Costello, Lena Horne and Dave Mason, and the promos I have are obviously superior. They could do a lot to improve their bios.-- Light show ( talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that the image was previously published. No evidence as to the place of publication; for example, if this photo was part of a UK presskit, the lack of a copyright notice would not make the image free. No evidence as to the date of publication; if this photo was used to publicize a 1990s CD reissue, for example, the lack of a copyright notice would not make the issue free. Uploading images with such deficiencies in necessary information led to Light Show's topic bans on image uploads, both here and at Commons, and pressing the same invalid arguments ad nauseam shows why the ban here has not been lifted or relaxed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (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.
File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg
- 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: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 00:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Justlettersandnumbers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The image's compliance with
WP:NFCC#2 is disputed at originally
Talk:Ida Kar#Image. It was given by photographer Mark Gerson, whose
email address is no longer working, in 2003 and is
released only under a professional license. To me, this image fails NFCC and fair use standards. However, the opposing view asserts that being small and cropped is good enough to meet NFCC and that even the image not yet released under a non-professional license does not affect the image's compliance in any way. I'm unsure whether contacting NPG is necessary; if so, that can be tried. Nonetheless, I can use the
other image, which is released under a non-free CC license. Even when CC BY-NC-ND is unacceptable (but that's because free content has been always the main mission), I consider such CC-licensed content an acceptable non-free content with "fair use" asserted and consider content released under non-CC fee-required license unacceptable (without fees paid actually). Of course, opinions vary.
George Ho (
talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC); edited, 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If using an impermissible content without a paid license is not copyright infringement, then how is it a fair use? George Ho ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can't make head or tail of this. The image is hosted by the National Portrait Gallery. George Ho seems to understand that the file is uploaded under our fair-use criteria, at low resolution and cropped from the original so as not be in any way useable for commercial purposes, but has suggested replacing it with a different image ... hosted by the exactly same institution. I'm sorry, but I can't follow the reasoning.
- Question: do we, or do we not, allow appropriate fair-use upload of images from the National Portrait Gallery? If not, do we allow fair-use uploads of any image hosted by a museum, and if so, why?
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- @
Justlettersandnumbers: At first, I don't know what to say about your reply and thought about rephrasing my full OP. However, then I read the
"Reproducing images from our Collection" page (
different link to same page), saying that either a license or a permission is required. I realized I should have not suggested using a different image from NPG, even when I thought about it. I guess I shall either ask legitimate copyright holders or not use the images from their collection for now (well, at least until a repository project for Commons-ineligible content is established and can allow non-free licenses). Since no CC license is acceptable here other than CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, I guess all that's left is acceptable "fair use". To me, the use of the image is neither "fair use" nor acceptable, though (to rephrase the sentence about "the opposing view" from my OP) I appreciate your efforts to assert your fair-use claims.
George Ho (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
-
George Ho, if there was a free image there'd be no justification for using this one. Have you identified one? If not: we have a number of
fair-use criteria, all of which which must be satisfied. Which of them does this image fail to satisfy in your opinion? I'd really like to know, because I have uploaded several images sourced from the National Portrait Gallery, and was thinking of adding another (for Kitaj). Obviously I'm not going to do that if there's some problem that I've failed to notice. It would be really helpful if you could specify clearly what you think the problem might be.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm working on obtaining a freely-license image, like
one of those by John Couzins. I'm still on a journey to seek other images. Now regarding this image, it think it fails
WP:NFCC#2 not because the NPG offers only a professional license for the image but because (I believe) the photographer Mark Gerson has had commercial interests in his works, especially this photo. I figured that I should have mentioned the original photographer earlier in the OP, but then I'm unsure whether it matters. Indeed, the copyright notice says "© Mark Gerson / National Portrait Gallery, London", meaning or implying that the photographer and the art gallery, despite giving free museum admissions to others, hold copyrights to the image. Moreover, Gerson gave NPG this image in 2003. I don't know how Gerson's works were negotiated, but all (or most) of his works are not released under non-professional license, meaning that the rights to use the image are restricted. --
George Ho (
talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- This just goes round and round. Yes, George Ho, I know it is a copyrighted image, obviously – that is why I uploaded only a low-resolution extract from it to Wikipedia. Yes, the gallery offers to supply a high-resolution version for professional use, but this is not that version, nor could it be used commercially because it is cropped from the original and at low resolution quite insufficient for commercial reproduction. If it had been a suitably-licensed free image I'd have uploaded it to Commons, obviously. Would some else kindly comment on this, please? I've said all I can, most of it several times, I still can't understand what it is that George is trying to say and my patience is beginning to fray at the edges. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm working on obtaining a freely-license image, like
one of those by John Couzins. I'm still on a journey to seek other images. Now regarding this image, it think it fails
WP:NFCC#2 not because the NPG offers only a professional license for the image but because (I believe) the photographer Mark Gerson has had commercial interests in his works, especially this photo. I figured that I should have mentioned the original photographer earlier in the OP, but then I'm unsure whether it matters. Indeed, the copyright notice says "© Mark Gerson / National Portrait Gallery, London", meaning or implying that the photographer and the art gallery, despite giving free museum admissions to others, hold copyrights to the image. Moreover, Gerson gave NPG this image in 2003. I don't know how Gerson's works were negotiated, but all (or most) of his works are not released under non-professional license, meaning that the rights to use the image are restricted. --
George Ho (
talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
-
George Ho, if there was a free image there'd be no justification for using this one. Have you identified one? If not: we have a number of
fair-use criteria, all of which which must be satisfied. Which of them does this image fail to satisfy in your opinion? I'd really like to know, because I have uploaded several images sourced from the National Portrait Gallery, and was thinking of adding another (for Kitaj). Obviously I'm not going to do that if there's some problem that I've failed to notice. It would be really helpful if you could specify clearly what you think the problem might be.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- @
Justlettersandnumbers: At first, I don't know what to say about your reply and thought about rephrasing my full OP. However, then I read the
"Reproducing images from our Collection" page (
different link to same page), saying that either a license or a permission is required. I realized I should have not suggested using a different image from NPG, even when I thought about it. I guess I shall either ask legitimate copyright holders or not use the images from their collection for now (well, at least until a repository project for Commons-ineligible content is established and can allow non-free licenses). Since no CC license is acceptable here other than CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, I guess all that's left is acceptable "fair use". To me, the use of the image is neither "fair use" nor acceptable, though (to rephrase the sentence about "the opposing view" from my OP) I appreciate your efforts to assert your fair-use claims.
George Ho (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (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.
February 27
File:Rohit-khattar.jpg
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Rohit-khattar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dipeshsidana ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:50, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Dykeasymodetab.png
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Dykeasymodetab.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ameliorate! ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 00:52, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Stuartlockwood.jpg
- 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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Stuartlockwood.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Snbritishfreak ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unclear copyright status, no verifiable source, may not be PD-Iraq as claimed FASTILY 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it's really a screenshot it might fall under "It is a photographic or cinematic work that is not compositive (artistic in nature) first published before 1 January 1999" given that the Gulf War was in 1990-1991, and I don't think that a screengrab from a television (propaganda) news program is going to have a more precise source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that this source is not verifiable, which means that the copyright status (PD-Iraq) cannot be verified. Additionally, it's not even clear this is a screenshot as claimed (the image has a black border). - FASTILY 06:51, 9 March 2018 (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.
File:CuevaDeLaOlla,Paquime,ChihuahuaMexico.png
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:CuevaDeLaOlla,Paquime,ChihuahuaMexico.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ancheta Wis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
PNG derived from JPG; available as JPG as higher quality: File:CuevaOlla.jpg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:02, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:Danko D Georgiev.JPG
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. Danko Georgiev ( talk) 15:06, 27 February 2018 (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.
File:El Portal de El Yunque, at night, 1997.jpg
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:El Portal de El Yunque, at night, 1997.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MaxToroMattei ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Delete as replaceable fair use. The building still exists, so there's no reason to use a non-free photo of it. The photographer appears to be the uploader, so if they relicense the photo to a free licnese it likely could be kept. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 18:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominiation, fails a strict reading of WP:NFCCP#1. Unless the author is willing to relicense it, it fails our policies. ALH ( talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (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.
File:Leon Russell-1980.jpg
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Leon Russell-1980.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
no evidence that reverse side of image was blank Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I own the original photo. It's blank. I can send it to you if you want, if you mail it back.-- Light show ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, I have about 100 more musician publicity photos like this one, all from the late 1970s to early 1980s. They have the person's name and record company on the front, are all blank on the reverse, and all PD. After a quick look at the lead photos for some bios, like Lulu, Rod Stewart, Elvis Costello, Lena Horne and Dave Mason, and the promos I have are obviously superior. They could do a lot to improve their bios.-- Light show ( talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that the image was previously published. No evidence as to the place of publication; for example, if this photo was part of a UK presskit, the lack of a copyright notice would not make the image free. No evidence as to the date of publication; if this photo was used to publicize a 1990s CD reissue, for example, the lack of a copyright notice would not make the issue free. Uploading images with such deficiencies in necessary information led to Light Show's topic bans on image uploads, both here and at Commons, and pressing the same invalid arguments ad nauseam shows why the ban here has not been lifted or relaxed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (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.
File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg
- 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: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 00:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Justlettersandnumbers ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The image's compliance with
WP:NFCC#2 is disputed at originally
Talk:Ida Kar#Image. It was given by photographer Mark Gerson, whose
email address is no longer working, in 2003 and is
released only under a professional license. To me, this image fails NFCC and fair use standards. However, the opposing view asserts that being small and cropped is good enough to meet NFCC and that even the image not yet released under a non-professional license does not affect the image's compliance in any way. I'm unsure whether contacting NPG is necessary; if so, that can be tried. Nonetheless, I can use the
other image, which is released under a non-free CC license. Even when CC BY-NC-ND is unacceptable (but that's because free content has been always the main mission), I consider such CC-licensed content an acceptable non-free content with "fair use" asserted and consider content released under non-CC fee-required license unacceptable (without fees paid actually). Of course, opinions vary.
George Ho (
talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC); edited, 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If using an impermissible content without a paid license is not copyright infringement, then how is it a fair use? George Ho ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can't make head or tail of this. The image is hosted by the National Portrait Gallery. George Ho seems to understand that the file is uploaded under our fair-use criteria, at low resolution and cropped from the original so as not be in any way useable for commercial purposes, but has suggested replacing it with a different image ... hosted by the exactly same institution. I'm sorry, but I can't follow the reasoning.
- Question: do we, or do we not, allow appropriate fair-use upload of images from the National Portrait Gallery? If not, do we allow fair-use uploads of any image hosted by a museum, and if so, why?
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- @
Justlettersandnumbers: At first, I don't know what to say about your reply and thought about rephrasing my full OP. However, then I read the
"Reproducing images from our Collection" page (
different link to same page), saying that either a license or a permission is required. I realized I should have not suggested using a different image from NPG, even when I thought about it. I guess I shall either ask legitimate copyright holders or not use the images from their collection for now (well, at least until a repository project for Commons-ineligible content is established and can allow non-free licenses). Since no CC license is acceptable here other than CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, I guess all that's left is acceptable "fair use". To me, the use of the image is neither "fair use" nor acceptable, though (to rephrase the sentence about "the opposing view" from my OP) I appreciate your efforts to assert your fair-use claims.
George Ho (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
-
George Ho, if there was a free image there'd be no justification for using this one. Have you identified one? If not: we have a number of
fair-use criteria, all of which which must be satisfied. Which of them does this image fail to satisfy in your opinion? I'd really like to know, because I have uploaded several images sourced from the National Portrait Gallery, and was thinking of adding another (for Kitaj). Obviously I'm not going to do that if there's some problem that I've failed to notice. It would be really helpful if you could specify clearly what you think the problem might be.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm working on obtaining a freely-license image, like
one of those by John Couzins. I'm still on a journey to seek other images. Now regarding this image, it think it fails
WP:NFCC#2 not because the NPG offers only a professional license for the image but because (I believe) the photographer Mark Gerson has had commercial interests in his works, especially this photo. I figured that I should have mentioned the original photographer earlier in the OP, but then I'm unsure whether it matters. Indeed, the copyright notice says "© Mark Gerson / National Portrait Gallery, London", meaning or implying that the photographer and the art gallery, despite giving free museum admissions to others, hold copyrights to the image. Moreover, Gerson gave NPG this image in 2003. I don't know how Gerson's works were negotiated, but all (or most) of his works are not released under non-professional license, meaning that the rights to use the image are restricted. --
George Ho (
talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- This just goes round and round. Yes, George Ho, I know it is a copyrighted image, obviously – that is why I uploaded only a low-resolution extract from it to Wikipedia. Yes, the gallery offers to supply a high-resolution version for professional use, but this is not that version, nor could it be used commercially because it is cropped from the original and at low resolution quite insufficient for commercial reproduction. If it had been a suitably-licensed free image I'd have uploaded it to Commons, obviously. Would some else kindly comment on this, please? I've said all I can, most of it several times, I still can't understand what it is that George is trying to say and my patience is beginning to fray at the edges. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm working on obtaining a freely-license image, like
one of those by John Couzins. I'm still on a journey to seek other images. Now regarding this image, it think it fails
WP:NFCC#2 not because the NPG offers only a professional license for the image but because (I believe) the photographer Mark Gerson has had commercial interests in his works, especially this photo. I figured that I should have mentioned the original photographer earlier in the OP, but then I'm unsure whether it matters. Indeed, the copyright notice says "© Mark Gerson / National Portrait Gallery, London", meaning or implying that the photographer and the art gallery, despite giving free museum admissions to others, hold copyrights to the image. Moreover, Gerson gave NPG this image in 2003. I don't know how Gerson's works were negotiated, but all (or most) of his works are not released under non-professional license, meaning that the rights to use the image are restricted. --
George Ho (
talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
-
George Ho, if there was a free image there'd be no justification for using this one. Have you identified one? If not: we have a number of
fair-use criteria, all of which which must be satisfied. Which of them does this image fail to satisfy in your opinion? I'd really like to know, because I have uploaded several images sourced from the National Portrait Gallery, and was thinking of adding another (for Kitaj). Obviously I'm not going to do that if there's some problem that I've failed to notice. It would be really helpful if you could specify clearly what you think the problem might be.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- @
Justlettersandnumbers: At first, I don't know what to say about your reply and thought about rephrasing my full OP. However, then I read the
"Reproducing images from our Collection" page (
different link to same page), saying that either a license or a permission is required. I realized I should have not suggested using a different image from NPG, even when I thought about it. I guess I shall either ask legitimate copyright holders or not use the images from their collection for now (well, at least until a repository project for Commons-ineligible content is established and can allow non-free licenses). Since no CC license is acceptable here other than CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, I guess all that's left is acceptable "fair use". To me, the use of the image is neither "fair use" nor acceptable, though (to rephrase the sentence about "the opposing view" from my OP) I appreciate your efforts to assert your fair-use claims.
George Ho (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (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.