Uploaded by BaylorPinoy (
notify).CV - Magazine cover being used in an article about the subject on the cover, but the articles doesn't discuss the cover at all. No fair use rationale, and the name of the magazine is cut off.
cholmes75(
chit chat) 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Miller17CU94 (
notify). CV- Taken from the IOC page, which is normally very strict about any of its copyrights.
Sue Anne 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Ecco1983 (
notify). Image is described as a "pomotional [sic] picture" but tagged as {{
film-screenshot}}. It is uncertain which of the previous it is.-
Lord Deskana (
talk) 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploader not notified. Tagging as orphaned fair use image instead. howcheng {
chat} 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Image:Pdficon small.gif, derivative ie. fair use work being used as a marker for external pdf files. Not necessary and an illegitimate fair use.--
Peta 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - although present usage complies with
Adobe licensing guidelines, the free icon will work just as well. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC) BigDT has a point, images with a clear fair use rationale and permission trump free images that may infringe copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
As a point of clarification, trademark and copyright are two different issues. If I print t-shirts that have a logo that looks a lot like a corporate logo, even though I may not have actually photoshopped the logo, that is a trademark infringement. It is not a copyright violation.
BigDT 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep unless I'm missing something. The "free"
Image:Noia 64 mimetypes pdf.png is almost certainly a trademark infringement. Even though it may not actually have been a photoshop of the Acrobat logo, it is obviously an infringement of their trademark. On the other hand,
Image:Pdficon small.gif is being used for a purpose specifically allowed by Adobe.
BigDT 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Free image > nonfree image. Trademark infringement is not relevant, we're not diluting the trademark by using it here.
Stifle (
talk) 23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Naming an icon using "pdf", making it look similar to Adobe's trademark, and placing it in the vicinity of a bunch of pdf files sounds to me like it would cause confusion and thus dilution. I don't claim to be a trademark expert, though, and I could be wrong. (I deal with copyright occasionally issues IRL, though I would not claim by any stretch of the imagination to be an expert, but I know little/nothing about trademark law.)
BigDT 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Zereshk (
notify). Invalid fair use - the image is a picture of a building being used in an article about the city where the building is located. Fails
WP:FAIR#Policy #8. Also, the source of the image is not clearly given.-
BigDT 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, fair use for for educational non-profit purpose on relevant article on topic--
Striver 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:FAIR. Images are not automatically fair use just because we want to use them. There are two sets of rules - under "Counterexamples" and "Policy". If you go down the list and find a single counterexample that is met or find a single policy that is not met, the image cannot be used. In this case, #8 under policy is not met.
BigDT 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep: This image doesnt fall under any of these regulations for deletion because it is leaglly and officially not protected by US copyright law, as stipulated in the
United States Copyright office Circuilar 38. The use of fairuse tag was merely arbitrary. It can be corrected.--
Zereshk 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Please note: Jimbo stated
here that we should respect Iranian copyright law, regardless of whether the US has a treaty with them. Thus, any images from Iran should be deleted as a copyright violation unless a valid fair use justification can be given. If interested, see also the horribly segmented discussion on
my talk page and
Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., as well as some
vote stacking.BigDT 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but this would only constitute fair use in an article about the building itself, and even then, an Iranian Wikipedian could just go take their own picture of it, so it would still fail
WP:FUC #1. howcheng {
chat} 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Iwasblueonce (
notify). Unused and unencyclopedic. Oddly enough, second version uploaded by same user is completely different too. --BrownCow • (
how now?) 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Lilashleh (
notify). not notable, unencyclopedic, see also
Craig Mounts bio/memorial article. Also possible copyright vio, as it sure looks like a senior picture to me. --
MrDolomite |
Talk 06:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by BaylorPinoy (
notify).CV - Magazine cover being used in an article about the subject on the cover, but the articles doesn't discuss the cover at all. No fair use rationale, and the name of the magazine is cut off.
cholmes75(
chit chat) 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Miller17CU94 (
notify). CV- Taken from the IOC page, which is normally very strict about any of its copyrights.
Sue Anne 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Ecco1983 (
notify). Image is described as a "pomotional [sic] picture" but tagged as {{
film-screenshot}}. It is uncertain which of the previous it is.-
Lord Deskana (
talk) 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploader not notified. Tagging as orphaned fair use image instead. howcheng {
chat} 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Image:Pdficon small.gif, derivative ie. fair use work being used as a marker for external pdf files. Not necessary and an illegitimate fair use.--
Peta 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - although present usage complies with
Adobe licensing guidelines, the free icon will work just as well. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC) BigDT has a point, images with a clear fair use rationale and permission trump free images that may infringe copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
As a point of clarification, trademark and copyright are two different issues. If I print t-shirts that have a logo that looks a lot like a corporate logo, even though I may not have actually photoshopped the logo, that is a trademark infringement. It is not a copyright violation.
BigDT 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep unless I'm missing something. The "free"
Image:Noia 64 mimetypes pdf.png is almost certainly a trademark infringement. Even though it may not actually have been a photoshop of the Acrobat logo, it is obviously an infringement of their trademark. On the other hand,
Image:Pdficon small.gif is being used for a purpose specifically allowed by Adobe.
BigDT 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Free image > nonfree image. Trademark infringement is not relevant, we're not diluting the trademark by using it here.
Stifle (
talk) 23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Naming an icon using "pdf", making it look similar to Adobe's trademark, and placing it in the vicinity of a bunch of pdf files sounds to me like it would cause confusion and thus dilution. I don't claim to be a trademark expert, though, and I could be wrong. (I deal with copyright occasionally issues IRL, though I would not claim by any stretch of the imagination to be an expert, but I know little/nothing about trademark law.)
BigDT 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Zereshk (
notify). Invalid fair use - the image is a picture of a building being used in an article about the city where the building is located. Fails
WP:FAIR#Policy #8. Also, the source of the image is not clearly given.-
BigDT 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, fair use for for educational non-profit purpose on relevant article on topic--
Striver 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:FAIR. Images are not automatically fair use just because we want to use them. There are two sets of rules - under "Counterexamples" and "Policy". If you go down the list and find a single counterexample that is met or find a single policy that is not met, the image cannot be used. In this case, #8 under policy is not met.
BigDT 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep: This image doesnt fall under any of these regulations for deletion because it is leaglly and officially not protected by US copyright law, as stipulated in the
United States Copyright office Circuilar 38. The use of fairuse tag was merely arbitrary. It can be corrected.--
Zereshk 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Please note: Jimbo stated
here that we should respect Iranian copyright law, regardless of whether the US has a treaty with them. Thus, any images from Iran should be deleted as a copyright violation unless a valid fair use justification can be given. If interested, see also the horribly segmented discussion on
my talk page and
Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., as well as some
vote stacking.BigDT 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but this would only constitute fair use in an article about the building itself, and even then, an Iranian Wikipedian could just go take their own picture of it, so it would still fail
WP:FUC #1. howcheng {
chat} 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Iwasblueonce (
notify). Unused and unencyclopedic. Oddly enough, second version uploaded by same user is completely different too. --BrownCow • (
how now?) 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Lilashleh (
notify). not notable, unencyclopedic, see also
Craig Mounts bio/memorial article. Also possible copyright vio, as it sure looks like a senior picture to me. --
MrDolomite |
Talk 06:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply