January 5
Image:GEBWikistress5.png ( talk | delete)
Image:Test123123.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Polatos.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by S_polatos ( notify | contribs). OE, UE, AB, user selfpic of user with minimal contribs MECU≈ talk 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cats-cradle.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by
Tibushu (
notify |
contribs). OR, AB (origional uploader), likely copyvio from url provided as source
MECU≈
talk 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Did you follow the link or just look that was a link and decide to nominate it for deletion? It says: "Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook." Do some due diligence before nomination, please.
- Do you have any biographical information about the author? The book is from 1916 and I believe Gutenberg normally takes pains only to host PD material since that is what the Gutenberg project was designed for. Weak keep unless we find biographical information that speaks against PD. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hargreavestears Portugal 2006.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Hosepipeban ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:3,3’,5,5’-Tetramethylbenzidine Rotation.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bryn_C ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, annoying rotation makes it UE MECU≈ talk 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of below national USA 2 svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it supposed to represent MECU≈ talk 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Andrews school pics 085.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Zebra_plop ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, 1 of 2 contribs from user, self pic? MECU≈ talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of above national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by
BrendelSignature (
notify |
contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it's supposed to represent
MECU≈
talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming those maps are all education-related ... probablyt he top 15 and bottom 15 in terms of SAT scores or something like that. (Not opposing deletion, just making a guess at what it is.) -- BigDT 05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of top 15 USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of below national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of top 15 above national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is (and it uses blue and green colors?) MECU≈ talk 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of USA bottom 15 svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MotoA780side.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p93.fig1.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p94.fig3.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p96.fig9.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fernidad.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by King_Fernidad_Frederick_of_Prussia ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Shannon moore.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Dustind ( notify | contribs). OR, likely copyvio, from wwe.com MECU≈ talk 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lapic.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Queensplayer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:DSCF0066.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jason_Baird ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free moth identification service MECU≈ talk 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Untitled5.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Panzerfaust1 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Deeping map.PNG ( talk | delete)
Image:Test1231231.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Maja-04-3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Majabobi ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, likely selfpic of user absent and with little contribs MECU≈ talk 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Phelps.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Mr. Speaker.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by RocketMaster ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I put in a comment on the related MFD. Keep since this is an established contributor with only one image like this, and I feel that is within acceptable bounds for userspace decoration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)- Keep What exactly is a problem? -- Irpen 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not free webhosting. Any image that is not being used and is not going to be used should be either moved to Commons if it is useful potentially or deleted if it is not. If the creator were using it on his/her userpage, ok, that's fine. But it's orphaned. --
BigDT 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is put into a user-subpage termed "my gallery". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RocketMaster/My Gallery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I should definitely have checked this out better. This image is indeed orphaned and can be deleted as a duplicate. The image I was talking about does not appear to be listed for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gotakonlogo2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Experiment_Jon ( notify | contribs). OR, likely fair use tagged incorrectly, only contribs by user are here at IFD MECU≈ talk 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gotakonlogo.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Experiment_Jon ( notify | contribs). OR, likely fair use tagged incorrectly, only contribs by user are here at IFD MECU≈ talk 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Guild logo devil face.GIF ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Oonweizheng ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ikona.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wiki_art ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, 1 of 2 contribs by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mustelus hacat 2003.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bogdangiusca ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) News media photo used to identify a particular kind of shark. Violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree:
- First of all, the copyright is owned by the research laboratory, not by Reuters: it was distributed by Reuters with the text "Cortesia Laboratorio de Ecologia".
- A free equivalent can't be easily created because it's a very obscure species -- it was only discovered in 2003!
bogdan 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination then, if Reuters does not actually own the image, provided that a fair use rationale is added to the image description page that explains this. -- BigDT 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Oswaldo paya.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Trade2tradewell ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo. Violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tyrenius ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Section referred to allows "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." This event (wrapping of a historic statue in red tape by a contemporary artist) was a cause of some controversy and notoriety in (inter)national media. It cannot be understood properly without an image of the event, which was of short duration, so it is not possible to make a new image of it. The text examines this specific controversy. Low resolution image used as Fair Use. (It is additionally covered by "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.")
Tyrenius 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --
BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to
WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry ... maybe I should have been more clear in what I was saying. Photos of 2-d objects are not considered "creative". If I take a photo of a painting that was created in the middle ages, my understanding is that my photo is in the public domain and you are free to use it, even if I jump up and down and scream at the top of my lungs that I don't want you to. (This is only US law - the law may be different elsewhere. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for the relevant caselaw.) On the other hand, photos of 3-d objects are considered creative and a copyright exists when you take a photo of a 3-d object. We cannot use news media photos as fair use. However, if the news media photo only depicts a 2-d object, that news media photo is not considered "creative" and thus, we can use it as a fair use image owned by whoever created the original 2-d object. A news media depicting anything other than a 2-d work of art cannot be used under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. At least that's my understanding of it. Once you get to something where you are dealing with copyrighted derivatives of copyrighted works, it gets complicated and if anyone familiar with copyright law has an opinion, I'd be interested. -- BigDT 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to
WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --
BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are muddling up different things. A photo of a 2-d object cannot in itself be copyrighted, so (unless the original object is itself still in copyright) there is no copyright involved. Therefore there is no question of Fair Use being involved. Fair Use only applies to a copyright work. Normally copyright work cannot be used. However, there are certain exceptions to this. These are known as "Fair Use" and are outlined in
Fair use. US law of the
Copyright Act of 1976 applies as wikipedia servers are in the US. Such Fair Use involves balancing factors such as "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Wikipedia's approach is stricter than the law demands, and is, as the introduction to
WP:FU states: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". This is the rationale for the Fair Use of this photo. It is a unique, historical event and it is now impossible to make a replacement image.
Tyrenius 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--
BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a contradiction between the introduction to WP:FU and WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. The latter also has an ambiguity, which we are reading differently. These points are obviously much wider in application than this particular image and need to be clarified. Tyrenius 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--
BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not as clearcut as some of the images below, but I'll have to go with delete because the image itself is not commented on by the article - the article comments on the subject of the image. The latter is not a valid application of fair use, but the former is.
Johnleemk |
Talk 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please note the image and its syndication by Reuters is now mentioned specifically in the text as a key factor in itself, not just used for illustrative purposes. Tyrenius 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:R1170292410 web.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Rangeley ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:25378254536.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Deletion is based on a guideline, not Wikipedia policy. Don't delete based on policy still being debated.
Image:SinDies.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Excellent 15 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, unacceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 06 09t034920 450x320 us security taliban zarqawi.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jstrome ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, unacceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Iraqi insurgents celebrate while riding through the streets of Falluja, May 1, 2004.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AP photo, unacceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific public protest, a unique historic event in the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. --
Irpen 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Please show me anywhere any person with the knowledge or authority to do so claiming that it is legitimate fair use to use a media photo for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the photo. If it were legitimate to claim these things as fair use, every news media photographer would close up shop tomorrow. Why would any newspaper actually pay for his/her photo if they can just take it and call it fair use? Regardless of your opinion on it and regardless of anything else,
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 says that unless the photo itself is famous, it cannot be used. --
BigDT 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The image does not illustrate the subject of the photo but the historic event. I did not interfere with your attempt (below) to delete the
image which indeed only illustrates the subject of the photo (Sadr himself). --
Irpen 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is the historic event. News media photos may only be used when the photo itself is iconic. Consider Battle of Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, or Kent State shootings. In all three cases, the photo itself is iconic. We aren't just using a photo to illustrate the article about the event, but we are discussing the photo itself. Unless you can write an article about the photo itself, it's not legitimate for fair use. -- BigDT 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The image does not illustrate the subject of the photo but the historic event. I did not interfere with your attempt (below) to delete the
image which indeed only illustrates the subject of the photo (Sadr himself). --
Irpen 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Please show me anywhere any person with the knowledge or authority to do so claiming that it is legitimate fair use to use a media photo for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the photo. If it were legitimate to claim these things as fair use, every news media photographer would close up shop tomorrow. Why would any newspaper actually pay for his/her photo if they can just take it and call it fair use? Regardless of your opinion on it and regardless of anything else,
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 says that unless the photo itself is famous, it cannot be used. --
BigDT 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- BigDT is absolutely correct here. -- GunnarRene 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- in the
Battle of Iwo Jima the photo is clearly being used to illustrate the article about the event. It is not an article about the photo, whose status is mentioned in passing only in one sentence. BigDT is wrong according to the introduction to
WP:FU: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, an article about the photo itself. If you feel that the use in Battle of Iwo Jima is illustrating the subject of the photo, rather than the photo itself, I disagree with you, but feel free to raise the issue on the talk page or be WP:BOLD and remove it. -- BigDT 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep.I agree that the image depicts a historic event in the context of the article. The image should stick. Like the image of raising the flag at Iwo Jima this is the raising of the flag at Fallujah and your POV BigDT is not neutral at all. The image has been on Wikipedia for more than two years now. Top Gun 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my observations above. Tyrenius 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is a low-resolution historical photo of an almost iconic status. It does not affect the commercial interests of AP (it is old and low-resolution), it is attributed, it cannot be replaced by a free equivalent and it significantly improves the article. Alex Bakharev 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. per BigDT. If someone is trying to argue that this image is iconic, they haven't convinced me. Why is this image considered iconic? The event was historical, yes, and it may be hard to locate a free image, but the publication of this copyrighted news photo on Wikipedia, in exactly the same way that the associated press markets it (to illustrate an informational article) violates point 2 of the fair use policy.
Mango
juice
talk 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Point 2 of WP:FUC says, "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." The obvious implication is that a low res image (such as this one) does not undermine the professional market. If that is wrong, then the wording needs to be changed, but as it stands, then it is not a bar to using agency images as such. Tyrenius 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence for uniqueness. (What’s so unique about it?) No evidence for iconic status. (Is the image readily recognised? Nope.) No exception to the cited counterexample, no clear rationale, so no fair use. —
xyzzy
n 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct that the rationale was missing and it was an oversight. I added the rationale now. --
Irpen 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I don’t have to guess.
;)I agree that free images from Fallujah in April/May 2004 probably don’t exist, but I disagree that this particular image could not be replaced. All we are seeing is a car with too many people inside, some of them with guns, in front of an out-of-focus building. Without the filename and caption, nobody would be able to tell where and when the picture was taken. And I don’t see any ‘crucial content’. — xyzzy n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)- If you think an appropriate caption is necessary, just add it. Our goal here is to produce encyclopedic content. This picture adds to content significantly. We also have to try to make sure this content is as free as reasonably possible. This is the case when free content is impossible. This is precisely what fairuse is for. If you agree that content is good, add the caption, thus adding to the content and making the image even more foolproof compliant. -- Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I don’t have to guess.
- You are correct that the rationale was missing and it was an oversight. I added the rationale now. --
Irpen 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The introduction to
WP:FU is being completely ignored by those wishing to delete the image: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phrase ‘not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but […]’ clearly says that the image must in particular qualify for fair use by the usual criteria. This is necessary. All the remaining verbiage is to the effect that even if that first requirement is met, the image might still not be usable here due to the free nature of the project and makes no exception from the normal fair use criteria. —
xyzzy
n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is necessary because it adds crucial content. To what extent it is necessary? would the article without it be totally useless? No. Does the image add to its value significantly? Yes. This is a judgment call and that's where people can disagree. However, the image clearly does not qualify for deletion by a blanket policy. Fairuse images has to be dealt case by case. In my view this case is keep. --
Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, what’s the crucial content there? My objection to this image (and most other recent images from news agencies) is, basically, that, given the way we use them for illustrating articles on related matters, they’re not covered by the
fair use exemption (see the quote from the Copyright Act in the article) and that our rationale for using them almost always reduces to
- We want an image showing the subject matter of foo.
- We can neither make such an image nor pay for any of the images we’ve found so far.
- Ergo, let’s just use it.
- Again, what’s the crucial content there? My objection to this image (and most other recent images from news agencies) is, basically, that, given the way we use them for illustrating articles on related matters, they’re not covered by the
fair use exemption (see the quote from the Copyright Act in the article) and that our rationale for using them almost always reduces to
- Yes, the image is necessary because it adds crucial content. To what extent it is necessary? would the article without it be totally useless? No. Does the image add to its value significantly? Yes. This is a judgment call and that's where people can disagree. However, the image clearly does not qualify for deletion by a blanket policy. Fairuse images has to be dealt case by case. In my view this case is keep. --
Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phrase ‘not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but […]’ clearly says that the image must in particular qualify for fair use by the usual criteria. This is necessary. All the remaining verbiage is to the effect that even if that first requirement is met, the image might still not be usable here due to the free nature of the project and makes no exception from the normal fair use criteria. —
xyzzy
n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Illegal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, no "competition" to AP is present here. The fourth fair-use clause does not override entirely the other three (sometimes fair use is possible even with some degree of competition), and it isn't even really appropriately invoked here. Let's go point by point-
1. "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- Use is clearly for nonprofit educational purposes by a recognized nonprofit organization.
2. "The nature of the copyrighted work;"
- A photo which, for the AP's purposes, is nearly useless now. There will be few to no newspapers/magazines/etc. running stories about such old news. It is, however, irreplaceable documentation of a historic event, meaning that its use here is quite valuable.
3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;"
- While it'd be easy to say "Well we're using the whole thing, duh!" that's not true. A low-resolution copy does not have nearly the value of a high-resolution one, and it makes it far more difficult for would-be pirates to use.
4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- As shown above, negligible to none. There is little "market" left for this photo anyway (old news isn't!), and commercial customers (the AP's customer base) will not copy a low-resolution image which will end up getting them sued when they are already in the habit of legally licensing thousands of images from AP.
- To sum up-clear fair use, clear irreplaceability. Let's at least use our fair use rights until the next Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act takes those away too. Seraphimblade 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, you're ignoring the fact that criterion #4 mentions the effect on the value of the work. We have effectively devalued the work by taking it and using it for free, instead of paying for the right to reuse it as AP intended. I remember this was once a very controversial issue on WP when someone wanted to get the picture of the naked napalmed Vietnamese girl deleted. That picture's saving grace, however, was that it was iconic and the subject of an article. This image is not iconic, nor is it the subject of an article (its subject is the subject of an article, however). Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Recall that AP can sell display-resolution photographs for use on the WWW. And your estimate of the market for the picture wouldn’t hold up in court ( WP:FU says it should). Also, you left out quite a bit of the legal text. And, finally, there’s counterexample 5. (By the way, we’re educational? Since when?!) — xyzzy n 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not ignoring that at all, which is why I examined what kind of potential market is left. If there's no market left, we cannot, whatever we do, harm something that no longer exists. I would imagine that over 99% of AP sales are of rights to images which are less than three months old-they sell to news agencies. This one is years old, and nobody wants it. If this photo were a week old, even a month, my evaluation (and my !vote) would have been very different.
- (edit conflict) What the market actually is is absolutely part of any FU court case. While AP can sell display-resolution photos (and they're still not going to sell this one often if ever, at its age), we are a non-profit institution, and the photo was uploaded by an an individual who will not and cannot profit from its use. Even if a slight harm to the market were found, any court would rule that it is negligible and the other parts of fair use far outweigh it. And if AP disagrees, they have but to file a DMCA complaint, and out goes the photo. Of course-one would think a news organization is aware of what the "bad" in "bad press" means, so I very much doubt they'll do that. Seraphimblade 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand why is this bothering you people this much, like Seraphimblade said the image has been on Wikipedia for two years and three months already, why has nobody deleted it before, and the pciture is three years old and AP is not using it any more, nobody want's it why is it a crime then that we use it, the picture is a representation of the insurgent victory in Fallujah, maybe it is not a so famous image like that of the battle of Iwo Jima but it is a fair and good representation of the iraqi insurgent victory, try finding another on good as that one. Top Gun 05:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- There’s a lot of images here that ought to be deleted, and, in comparison, a very small number of people who check images, so it can take a while. Also, Wikipedia’s stance on non-free images has become tougher during the last few years. This is why this image has stayed for so long. And the reason it shouldn’t stay any longer is the WP:FU policy. This is sufficient. Finding a replacement might be urgent if the image was good or important… but it isn’t. — xyzzy n 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- (In reply to xyzzy) The fair use clause doesn't and was never intended to enumerate every possible form of fair use. Website and video game screenshots aren't specifically enumerated in the Copyright Act either, but they're often counted as a fair use. Rather, it gives four evaluation criteria, which I've listed above. (There is no fifth one, and it never does enumerate counterexamples, I'm not sure what your "counterexample 5" refers to.) I'm also not sure how you're saying this is from my imagination-I told you what the Copyright Act says and what the criteria are. Writing this particular encyclopedia is a non-profit and educational use which does not directly interfere with AP's market-in short, it's very likely a fair use. One would imagine AP knows that, and knows how to send a DMCA complaint to Wikimedia if they didn't think so. Betcha they got a copyright lawyer or two around that does that kind of thing. 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I tend to read the whole of the law, and it does enumerate the possible uses. Screenshots are often permissible under ‘criticism’ or ‘comment’ (depending on what one does with them, of course). As for the counterexamples, they’re part of our fair use policy, not the Copyright Act. See WP:FU#Counterexamples. (Sorry I didn’t previously link to that.)
- Writing this encyclopedia may be non-profit, but ‘free’ in ‘the free encyclopedia’ includes the right to sell it (part of the GFDL/ pillar 3) and we must make sure we don’t sabotage that.
- Also, since the WWW is part of AP’s market and Wikipedia is a fairly prominent website, we always interfere. And that AP hasn’t complained thus far is no reason for us to assume their agreement. They don’t need to complain to maintain copyright, and they don’t need to complain about Wikipedia directly—they could just sue all the commercial mirrors one by one.
- The remark noting your imagination was in reply to ‘I would imagine that […] nobody wants it.’ I would imagine the judge might want to see your oracle.
;)— xyzzy n 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)- The judge could see their sales records, one would imagine, and those would probably make quite a fine oracle. :) However, note that fair uses are not enumerated-a set of guidelines which should be considered in each individual case is set forth, but the judge evaluates those guidelines in each case. I get your "imagine" and "counterexample" remarks now, thanks for clarifying those. As to the counterexamples-you are aware that consensus can change, and that the fair use guidelines are under pretty heavy debate right now? Of course, no consensus can go against real legal trouble-but if AP sent in a DMCA complaint (which they would have to do before anything else, since WP complies with the DMCA's safe harbor provision), WP:OFFICE just nukes it from orbit and everything's fine. I consider that...unlikely, however, and even that's an optimistic estimate of the chances. I imagine AP knows it's a likely fair use and doesn't hurt them, and if anything gives them valuable publicity out of an old and nearly-worthless picture. (Now for that one, the judge would have to ask for my oracle, but it tends to work reasonably well.) Seraphimblade 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless they’re future sales records, they’re not an oracle. What if the guy with the microphone kills somebody important next week? The picture would sell quite well, then. Regarding the exact procedure for AP to proceed, please do keep in mind that Wikipedia is copied to a lot more places than the Foundation servers, and many of those places are not 501(c)s. Content must not depend on Wikimedia’s status and popularity.
- Regarding WP:CCC, recall that ‘[t]hat does not mean you should ignore a consensual decision’. Right now, the WP:FU terms reflect consensus. If consensus changes, WP:FU will be adapted, but there’s no deadline for that. In the meantime, we should follow the policy in its current state. — xyzzy n 08:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like that opinions on this image are preaty divided fifty-fifty.— Top Gun 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sadrprotest.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (not an orphan) News media photo, not acceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific public protest, a unique historic event in the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. --
Irpen 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The law specifically considers "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Seeing as AP's livelihood consists of selling the rights to use such images, I think it's clear we're infringing on that market by not paying for the right to use the image. The only cases where we're allowed an escape clause is with truly iconic images like that of the Tiananmen Square guy facing down the tank. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- KeepThe image must stick. It's a historic event that has to be represented. The Iraq war is an ongoing war and most of the events that happen are just happening so there are no freeuse historical images that can be used. Almost totaly the images of the Iraq war are images from the news agencys you will have a hard time finding sources where they explicitly say "here use this" -- Top Gun 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.It's a valid prepresentation of a historic event, a public protest that has to be represented. — Top Gun 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per BigDT; non-iconic media image of an historic event. Mango juice talk 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Kjetil _r 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sadr.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) News media photo, not acceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, unless the photo itself is specifically tagged as an AP photo, it's possible that AP is using it as a free photo themselves. Any evidence of AP copyright on this one? Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Baghdadvendor.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by JMaxwell ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AFP photo, not acceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Story.outside.najaf.tues.5..jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Top Gun ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is tagged as {{ NoRightsReserved}}, but the photo is creator-marked as "AP PHOTO". News media photos are not acceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ramadi-insurgent3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Top Gun ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AP Photo incorrectly tagged as AllRightsReleased. AP Photos are unacceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI have put a new tag explaining the need for the pictured in the stated article, by my opinion the picture is need to represent the article in a whole. Also if you would read WP:FAIR#Counterexamples it says that 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. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:FU: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". Tyrenius 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per above. -- Irpen 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Image page claims ‘Website publishes photographs with no apparent attempts at copyright’, but gives no source for the image (besides which copyright does not require an explicit assertion beyond ‘I took the picture’). Also claims ‘no loss of commercial viability’, but image is potentially usable in a context where copyright holder would receive licensing fees, and ‘photographs seem to have been implicitly released for widespread public consumption with no interest in authorship rights’, but no reason for this assertion is given. Further claims ‘no suitable alternatives available’, but this is irrelevant for the problem of fair use (and probably false). Image is used in exactly one article,
Battle of Ramadi (2006), and without a specific fair use rationale. Image is perfectly replaceable in that article. Therefore no fair use (and perfect match for the counterexample quoted by
Top Gun). —
xyzzy
n 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You try finding an alternative which depicts the article truthfuly. And my qoute was for If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don’t need to depict the article. The article is the primary content; the images are auxiliary. In terms of replacing it while keeping the article informative, I think a map of the area might do the trick. As for your quote, are you claiming the image itself is newsworthy/notorious? If so, could you please cite some reports about the image? — xyzzy n 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You try finding an alternative which depicts the article truthfuly. And my qoute was for If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.I have added a source link to the page from where the image was taken which proves the image is in free use and that it was not an AP photo. — Top Gun 04:33, 7 January 2007
- Delete per nom, same reasoning as the others. Mango juice talk 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.You just proved my point. First of all I don't see where it says on
the blog that the photo is AP photo but as you said the blog uses it legally in terms of fair use, then why wouldn't we use it also if it is in free use. Try and beet this coment.—
Top Gun 18:05, 7 January 2007
- I did no such thing. The blog (which I advise you to read if you wish to use it as an argument) says that ‘Associated Press "photojournalist" Bilal Hussein […] took the second photo displayed in this post.’ The reason the inclusion of the image in the blog is fair use is that the blog discusses the image (where and when it was taken and how it was presented) and the image is one of the main subjects of the blog entry. This is quite obviously not the case in the sole Wikipedia article which includes the image. By the way, please either log in or sign properly. — xyzzy n 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as noncompeting fair use, but preference to fair use image if any can be found (didn't the Army/Marines take any photos? These would be automatically PD.) Seraphimblade 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Kjetil _r 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.I do not understand why is this bothering you people this much the image is a year old already and AP is not using it any more, nobody want's it why is it a crime then that we use it, the picture is a representation of the fighting going on during the Battle of Ramadi. Should the article be without even one picture. It's a representation of the fighting like the images of the street fighting in the article about the battle of Stalingrad. I guess probably that you would say that it would have been OK if it was an image of US Marines taken by them. Well sorry the insurgent said doesn't have official photographer and can only use the free news services like AP, again the images is a year old and AP is not using it anymore and probably never will. so what is the problem.
Top Gun 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- There was a court case [1] in which the court found that a trivia book containing Seinfeld trivia was violating Seinfeld's copyright even though the producers of Seinfeld had never even considered creating such a book themselves. In other words, the fact that they aren't actively marketing the image any more is irrelevant. Wikipedia can be held legally accountable if we are giving these images to ask.com and about.com and other commercial downstream content providers, supplanting the AP's right to sell it. News media photos should be a speedy deletion criterion and probably will at some point if we can ever come up with good wording for it that will exclude anything that could be legitimate. -- BigDT 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted image. The image provides nothing critical to the articles it was linked to and there was no commentary specific to the image in the articles. - Nv8200p talk 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Vantoll.jpg (
talk |
delete)
- Uploaded by Fcbayern55 ( notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic. Vanity; the only page using this image has been deleted. — Carson 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not deleted - uploader not notified - will relist on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 14 -- BigDT 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cairns City Council Crest.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fosnez ( notify | contribs). I uploaded this image, but have found a more up to date one here Image:Cairns City Council.jpg — Fosnez 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tanner.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Thobin21 ( notify | contribs). Used only in prodded userpage. Wikipedia is not myspace. User has zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CharDirtWorld.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Deperm ( notify | contribs). CharDirtWorld.PNG - obsoleted by Worldmapcolorsm.png -- Deperm 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Joyful kid.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Quadell ( notify | contribs). The photo was sourced from www.sxc.hu and the uploader claims there are "no usage restrictions for this photo", but the licensing terms of the website [2] are clear "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" (their caps). I read this restriction as making the image unsuitable for uploading to Wikipedia and certainly does not allow it to be put into the Public Domain as claimed. — Gwernol 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CVG airfield.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Newstate ( notify | contribs). LQ, OB by CVG_airport_diagram.svg. — grendel| khan 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Image:Google Braille.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Seweso ( notify | contribs). Unlicenced, orphaned, and probably a copyright violation. — Dark jedi requiem 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, copyvio per [3] Argyriou (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gunther6.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tirangaman ( notify | contribs). Watermarked image — CLW 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Graduation fu.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:IM001669a.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Techo_blood ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Losingyou2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ghansman ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB: LQ, photo of album cover where one from a website would be better, no license, but presumed to be fair use album cover MECU≈ talk 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Losingyou1.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ghansman ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, LQ: photo of album cover, whereas one from a website would be better quality, no license, but presumed to be fair use album cover MECU≈ talk 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kalyazin.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by GoOdCoNtEnT ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Image will be useful for Kalyazin when the article gets expanded enough to fit more than one image. -- Irpen 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason as to why delete the image... It is PD and we can defenetly add it to Kalyazin article. There are millions of orphaned images, why delete them all? — dima /s-ko/ 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (LQ). The composition is very poor, with nothing visible in the foreground and only a fuzzy view of the St. Nicholas belltower in the far distance. I can't see how this image could possibly enhance any article, except perhaps as an example of poor photography. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CNV00027.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Markus2004 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Chevy colorado.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Sjh123 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, article already has 3 (plenty) of this subject MECU≈ talk 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Faridpur.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Shefa ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, "personal"? MECU≈ talk 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:STS-121 debris clear.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Richard_Taylor ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Beatrix.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by William_Pembroke ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:HSV models.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by (3ucky(3all ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MikeOnTheMillenniumForce.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Mikedk9109 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:SPPL-Example.gif ( talk | delete)
Image:Mr wichtowsi dispaly.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jimothytrotter ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Trevor heseton.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:French Inhale.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Yankeefan3457 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Donald North Court.jpg ( talk | delete)
This Photo is for the Camp Yawgoog Article, to enhance it. I don't see why this should be deleted as I took this photo (and release it, as long as some word of credit goes to me)and does not violate any policys. KB1KOI 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- To translate the reasons in the nomination, it’s not currently used anywhere and its purpose is not self-evident. Would you consider uploading it at Commons? Then even if it is deleted here, it could be included in articles later on. — xyzzy n 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist xyzzy. This image isn't used on Wikipedia and I don't know why we should have it here. You said it's for Camp Yawgoog, but you aren't using it. Why not? And, I think it should be deleted off Wikipedia, even if used, and exist on commons. If you are uploading your own pictures, and willing to release them, then you should upload them to commons. Once this exists on commons, it can be deleted here. -- MECU≈ talk 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:STEREOSUPERNOVA.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by MartinConnolly ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:James in front of white house.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamesd1118 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Michpfeiffer.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Warholmuse ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, copyvio MECU≈ talk 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I support the deletion, but if the image is obviously incorrectly licensed (promo image, logo, screenshot, album/book/newspaper cover), be WP:BOLD bold and change the license on the image page and then nominate as an orphaned fair use; it does not need to come here. Just make sure your edit summary is clear about why your changing the license. If there is any question about the license, bring it here, but it is remarkable the number of images that are mis-licensed.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Old English table knife.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by David_R._Ingham ( notify | contribs). Or, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blacksod.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Solidenterprises ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0155.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Sufi633 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Black screen of death.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Solidenterprises ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mantingsmall.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB, possible copyvio from source MECU≈ talk 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Doorlongsmall.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PoleBig.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Spiralysispainting.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:206royalanncherryclose.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:01sasquatchhail.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Donnybrook Sign.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Attentionspanltd ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, which Donnybrook is it? only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:63europeanbeechleaves.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:06sasquatch1.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Royalanncherrycontext2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:04sasquatchcardboardboxes.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Hiddenrape.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bladeroom ( notify | contribs). Warning: adult content, OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stuffedbuffalo.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Hidebanner.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:08gorge2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a free file host (has many listed above already) MECU≈ talk 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sumidero high point.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mazuntesmallturtle.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:09beckpuppet.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Craig-web BEST crop 50 shadow.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Cfellen ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Appears to be some sort of butter knife.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by David_R._Ingham ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:AL-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CYP-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:ETH-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PRO-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:BU-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PARGY-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MKD(LION).gif ( talk | delete)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=delete){kind=link}
- Uploaded by Vlatkoto ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely incorrect license, fair use logo, orphaned MECU≈ talk 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Morborne.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Ayers rock 3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Lincolnwong ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ, article already has better images MECU≈ talk 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PIC 0070.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Barnstar(1).png ( talk | delete)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
- Uploaded by Michaelas10 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, barnstar that doesn't appear to be any different or special MECU≈ talk 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, this is a failed candidate for barnstar change, but I've previously removed the proposal per duplication concerns. I've now added the speedy deletion tag to it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CIMG0446.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Clocksmith23 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only 2 contribs by uploader, other redundant image of this one MECU≈ talk 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sagar University Mono.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jsx1200 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely incorrect license, fair use logo, orphaned MECU≈ talk 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 6187.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Bcbsgei.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Pradyothkumar ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, google earth image, incorrect license MECU≈ talk 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mixedbreed.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Cherylrenee ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Jelloshot.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Polylerus ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, page already has suitable image MECU≈ talk 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- On Commons - Nv8200p talk 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:USA North Korea Locator.PNG ( talk | delete)
Image:HPIM0629b.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:PPUSAplain 300ppi.png ( talk | delete)
Image:PP of US - white.png ( talk | delete)
Image:PPUS.png ( talk | delete)
Image:1 (10).jpg ( talk | delete)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
Image:Decree.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by JzG ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, cabal-istic not in Wikipedia's best interest MECU≈ talk 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, funny. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as creator. There is no cabal. And if you delete this, The Cabal will be after you. Guy ( Help!) 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Speedily?) delete (no references, exact duplicate of Image:Decree.png). Re nom’s reasons re actual image: used only in WP: namespace, so UE unobjection; cabal unobjection allwhere. — xyzzy n 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I hope OR here doesn't mean WP:OR? Anyway - per Guy, TINC, and I'd argue that it is in the best interests of the 'pedia - we use it as an informal way to let users new and old know that there is no cabal, and they have nothing to fear. Mart inp23 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have tagged it with {{ nowcommonsthis}}. There's no particular reason to keep it since it is on Commons. It can be speedied in a week. -- BigDT 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as orphaned copy of (very useful) image now at commons. Eluchil404 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Watervalemap.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by WhippetGood ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Debrecen.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Copy of hazara boy.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Beh-nam ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, source link dead MECU≈ talk 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kimjongil-nowave.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Signincreate ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-01.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-02.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-03.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-04.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-06.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-07.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-08.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Monument in Winter.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Doctor-of-fostat ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-09.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Peggys Cove Light House.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Wooden spoon - for sale.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ian_the_Nut ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:H varwinter1.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Barrett.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tvfan1 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio, incorrect license MECU≈ talk 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wafflesthegoat.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Update 017.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wakeupnewyork ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, few contribs by uploader MECU≈ talk 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pojat1.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Smilesmile.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Smilesmilemusic ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:ToshibaSatellite1800.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by M1chaelz0r ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, LQ, imaged used in article and later removed MECU≈ talk 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kerri-dunn.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Whithulme ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, inserted into article and later removed, likely copyvio, fair use would be replaceable MECU≈ talk 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lewiss.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Picture 201.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Sk10000.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wd1040 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, might be fair use orphaned MECU≈ talk 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You can use it in the "South Korean Won" article. I just don't know how to load it. The Caption should say "New SKW 10000 Note"
Image:Abysinniayarrow.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by PopUpPirate ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I took the picture, uploaded it correctly, and it has been listed for deletion, in a bulk delete - ridiculous tbh! Ho hum! -- PopUpPirate 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) KEEP -- PopUpPirate 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, Wikipedia does not normally keep images that are not used in any articles, but anything that is of good quality and freely licensed (as this one is) can be moved to
Commons so that they can be used on other Wikimedia projects. --
BigDT 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this image is now in use, I have added it to WP:TROLL#Misidentified trolls. It's a perfect picture to illustrate that part of the essay. -- BigDT 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bailey.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wafflesonstanchion.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0442.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Pavelgri ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, YAPP, Warning: adult content MECU≈ talk 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mati panorama3.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Talking with voter.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wolfae ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely not GDFL MECU≈ talk 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Merilyn Sakova 1.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ace1213 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by user, likely not GDFL MECU≈ talk 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blackandtan.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Introv3rt ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, few contribs by user (other image redudant) MECU≈ talk 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Brighton Beach UKs thong capital.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Aam422 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈ talk 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bombay11.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Aam422 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈ talk 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bombay13.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay15.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay20.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay23.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay26.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:CrimsonScarlet.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Lil-old-me ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:SabotHole.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Jeffcapo.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:QueenofMagic.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:B-24Stripped.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:BioSc3.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bio-Photo retouched.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Rubiconsound ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sanzio-detail.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Dr._Avi_Stein ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:StatusofUSEqualRightsAmendment.svg ( talk | delete)
Image:Walmart Neighborhood Market2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:SELogo.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tmt27 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, possible copyvio, 3 contribs by user (2 on this image) MECU≈ talk 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bllix 2006.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Salon.com screenshot (Jul-06-06).png ( talk | delete)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
- Uploaded by Artificialard ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Heech standing.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Standing heech.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:The Wharf day mono.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:MVPmods.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Kccitystar ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, used in AFD article MECU≈ talk 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Karachi at night.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. It doesn't really belong here, but it's a great photo. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted from Wikipedia. Now on Commons - Nv8200p talk 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mercury Capsule2.gif ( talk | delete)
Image:Neander Valley Map.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jason_Potter ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This image gives the position as about 150 km too far to the east." MECU≈ talk 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ppc edit 1.2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Sheboygan Rotary Sign.png ( talk | delete)
Image:Cfsmoppingup.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Emmanuellives ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. It's worth keeping. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bushfire1.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Emmanuellives ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:M2 Islamabad Interchange.jpeg ( talk | delete)
January 5
Image:GEBWikistress5.png ( talk | delete)
Image:Test123123.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Polatos.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by S_polatos ( notify | contribs). OE, UE, AB, user selfpic of user with minimal contribs MECU≈ talk 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cats-cradle.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by
Tibushu (
notify |
contribs). OR, AB (origional uploader), likely copyvio from url provided as source
MECU≈
talk 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Did you follow the link or just look that was a link and decide to nominate it for deletion? It says: "Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook." Do some due diligence before nomination, please.
- Do you have any biographical information about the author? The book is from 1916 and I believe Gutenberg normally takes pains only to host PD material since that is what the Gutenberg project was designed for. Weak keep unless we find biographical information that speaks against PD. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hargreavestears Portugal 2006.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Hosepipeban ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:3,3’,5,5’-Tetramethylbenzidine Rotation.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bryn_C ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, annoying rotation makes it UE MECU≈ talk 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of below national USA 2 svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it supposed to represent MECU≈ talk 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Andrews school pics 085.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Zebra_plop ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, 1 of 2 contribs from user, self pic? MECU≈ talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of above national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by
BrendelSignature (
notify |
contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it's supposed to represent
MECU≈
talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming those maps are all education-related ... probablyt he top 15 and bottom 15 in terms of SAT scores or something like that. (Not opposing deletion, just making a guess at what it is.) -- BigDT 05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of top 15 USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of below national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of top 15 above national USA svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, don't know what it is (and it uses blue and green colors?) MECU≈ talk 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:286px-Map of USA bottom 15 svg.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by BrendelSignature ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ don't know what it is MECU≈ talk 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MotoA780side.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p93.fig1.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p94.fig3.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Poeej.vol43.p96.fig9.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Harumphy ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is from the "Post Office Electrical Engineer's Journal" which allows limited reproduction of their material. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. BigDT 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fernidad.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by King_Fernidad_Frederick_of_Prussia ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Shannon moore.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Dustind ( notify | contribs). OR, likely copyvio, from wwe.com MECU≈ talk 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lapic.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Queensplayer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:DSCF0066.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jason_Baird ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free moth identification service MECU≈ talk 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Untitled5.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Panzerfaust1 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Deeping map.PNG ( talk | delete)
Image:Test1231231.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Maja-04-3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Majabobi ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, likely selfpic of user absent and with little contribs MECU≈ talk 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Phelps.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Mr. Speaker.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by RocketMaster ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I put in a comment on the related MFD. Keep since this is an established contributor with only one image like this, and I feel that is within acceptable bounds for userspace decoration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)- Keep What exactly is a problem? -- Irpen 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not free webhosting. Any image that is not being used and is not going to be used should be either moved to Commons if it is useful potentially or deleted if it is not. If the creator were using it on his/her userpage, ok, that's fine. But it's orphaned. --
BigDT 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is put into a user-subpage termed "my gallery". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RocketMaster/My Gallery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I should definitely have checked this out better. This image is indeed orphaned and can be deleted as a duplicate. The image I was talking about does not appear to be listed for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gotakonlogo2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Experiment_Jon ( notify | contribs). OR, likely fair use tagged incorrectly, only contribs by user are here at IFD MECU≈ talk 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gotakonlogo.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Experiment_Jon ( notify | contribs). OR, likely fair use tagged incorrectly, only contribs by user are here at IFD MECU≈ talk 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Guild logo devil face.GIF ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Oonweizheng ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ikona.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wiki_art ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, 1 of 2 contribs by uploader MECU≈ talk 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mustelus hacat 2003.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bogdangiusca ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) News media photo used to identify a particular kind of shark. Violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree:
- First of all, the copyright is owned by the research laboratory, not by Reuters: it was distributed by Reuters with the text "Cortesia Laboratorio de Ecologia".
- A free equivalent can't be easily created because it's a very obscure species -- it was only discovered in 2003!
bogdan 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination then, if Reuters does not actually own the image, provided that a fair use rationale is added to the image description page that explains this. -- BigDT 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Oswaldo paya.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Trade2tradewell ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo. Violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Napier-Red-Tape.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tyrenius ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Section referred to allows "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." This event (wrapping of a historic statue in red tape by a contemporary artist) was a cause of some controversy and notoriety in (inter)national media. It cannot be understood properly without an image of the event, which was of short duration, so it is not possible to make a new image of it. The text examines this specific controversy. Low resolution image used as Fair Use. (It is additionally covered by "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.")
Tyrenius 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --
BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to
WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry ... maybe I should have been more clear in what I was saying. Photos of 2-d objects are not considered "creative". If I take a photo of a painting that was created in the middle ages, my understanding is that my photo is in the public domain and you are free to use it, even if I jump up and down and scream at the top of my lungs that I don't want you to. (This is only US law - the law may be different elsewhere. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for the relevant caselaw.) On the other hand, photos of 3-d objects are considered creative and a copyright exists when you take a photo of a 3-d object. We cannot use news media photos as fair use. However, if the news media photo only depicts a 2-d object, that news media photo is not considered "creative" and thus, we can use it as a fair use image owned by whoever created the original 2-d object. A news media depicting anything other than a 2-d work of art cannot be used under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. At least that's my understanding of it. Once you get to something where you are dealing with copyrighted derivatives of copyrighted works, it gets complicated and if anyone familiar with copyright law has an opinion, I'd be interested. -- BigDT 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are saying the Fair Use wording is wrong. The photo of the cartoons as cited is not newsworthy in itself (any photo of them would suffice, not one particular photo). That is not a 2-d argument. It is a "noteworthy" argument. The 2-d argument comes into "Paintings..." as a different rationale. It says "other works of visual art" without a specific condition of 2-d. Obviously sculpture is visual art, so is covered by the current wording. In this case, anyway, there is an argument that this particular photo is newsworthy as it was the one that accompanied the debate. Regardless of that, as stated in the introduction to
WP:FU:"Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is newsworthy ... but the photo itself is not. If this were a photo of a 2-d object, you are correct that we could use it - scanning/copying/photographing a 2-d object confers no copyright. Unfortunately, it is a photo of a 3-d object and an additional copyright is conferred. --
BigDT 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are muddling up different things. A photo of a 2-d object cannot in itself be copyrighted, so (unless the original object is itself still in copyright) there is no copyright involved. Therefore there is no question of Fair Use being involved. Fair Use only applies to a copyright work. Normally copyright work cannot be used. However, there are certain exceptions to this. These are known as "Fair Use" and are outlined in
Fair use. US law of the
Copyright Act of 1976 applies as wikipedia servers are in the US. Such Fair Use involves balancing factors such as "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Wikipedia's approach is stricter than the law demands, and is, as the introduction to
WP:FU states: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". This is the rationale for the Fair Use of this photo. It is a unique, historical event and it is now impossible to make a replacement image.
Tyrenius 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--
BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a contradiction between the introduction to WP:FU and WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. The latter also has an ambiguity, which we are reading differently. These points are obviously much wider in application than this particular image and need to be clarified. Tyrenius 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok ... perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly with respect to 2-d images ... at any rate, it's moot as this is obviously a 3d object. Regardless of replaceability, Wikipedia policy makes no allowance for fair use news media photos. Whereas Wikipedia could probably get away with it in court (we do have an educational mission, after all), downstream uses could not. There are commercial websites that reuse Wikipedia content, so we need to be more restrictive than what, say, a high school would require. The way news media photographers feed their families is by selling their photos. So when we provide these photos to about.com or someone else who reuses Wikipedia content, we are redistributing it to them for exactly the same purpose that the photographer would like to sell their photo. That can't be considered fair use under US law and under
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it's not considered fair use on Wikipedia. I hope that helps explain my viewpoint. Also, please keep in mind that there's at least a decent chance that it's replaceable. (This has nothing to do with my reason for nominating it for deletion - I offer this only as a suggestion.) If the girl that created this object is still alive, it may be possible to contact here and request a GFDL image of it.--
BigDT 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not as clearcut as some of the images below, but I'll have to go with delete because the image itself is not commented on by the article - the article comments on the subject of the image. The latter is not a valid application of fair use, but the former is.
Johnleemk |
Talk 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please note the image and its syndication by Reuters is now mentioned specifically in the text as a key factor in itself, not just used for illustrative purposes. Tyrenius 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:R1170292410 web.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Rangeley ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:25378254536.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, violates WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Deletion is based on a guideline, not Wikipedia policy. Don't delete based on policy still being debated.
Image:SinDies.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Excellent 15 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, unacceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 06 09t034920 450x320 us security taliban zarqawi.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jstrome ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Reuters photo, unacceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Iraqi insurgents celebrate while riding through the streets of Falluja, May 1, 2004.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AP photo, unacceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific public protest, a unique historic event in the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. --
Irpen 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Please show me anywhere any person with the knowledge or authority to do so claiming that it is legitimate fair use to use a media photo for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the photo. If it were legitimate to claim these things as fair use, every news media photographer would close up shop tomorrow. Why would any newspaper actually pay for his/her photo if they can just take it and call it fair use? Regardless of your opinion on it and regardless of anything else,
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 says that unless the photo itself is famous, it cannot be used. --
BigDT 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The image does not illustrate the subject of the photo but the historic event. I did not interfere with your attempt (below) to delete the
image which indeed only illustrates the subject of the photo (Sadr himself). --
Irpen 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the photo is the historic event. News media photos may only be used when the photo itself is iconic. Consider Battle of Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, or Kent State shootings. In all three cases, the photo itself is iconic. We aren't just using a photo to illustrate the article about the event, but we are discussing the photo itself. Unless you can write an article about the photo itself, it's not legitimate for fair use. -- BigDT 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The image does not illustrate the subject of the photo but the historic event. I did not interfere with your attempt (below) to delete the
image which indeed only illustrates the subject of the photo (Sadr himself). --
Irpen 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Please show me anywhere any person with the knowledge or authority to do so claiming that it is legitimate fair use to use a media photo for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the photo. If it were legitimate to claim these things as fair use, every news media photographer would close up shop tomorrow. Why would any newspaper actually pay for his/her photo if they can just take it and call it fair use? Regardless of your opinion on it and regardless of anything else,
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 says that unless the photo itself is famous, it cannot be used. --
BigDT 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- BigDT is absolutely correct here. -- GunnarRene 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- in the
Battle of Iwo Jima the photo is clearly being used to illustrate the article about the event. It is not an article about the photo, whose status is mentioned in passing only in one sentence. BigDT is wrong according to the introduction to
WP:FU: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, an article about the photo itself. If you feel that the use in Battle of Iwo Jima is illustrating the subject of the photo, rather than the photo itself, I disagree with you, but feel free to raise the issue on the talk page or be WP:BOLD and remove it. -- BigDT 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep.I agree that the image depicts a historic event in the context of the article. The image should stick. Like the image of raising the flag at Iwo Jima this is the raising of the flag at Fallujah and your POV BigDT is not neutral at all. The image has been on Wikipedia for more than two years now. Top Gun 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my observations above. Tyrenius 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is a low-resolution historical photo of an almost iconic status. It does not affect the commercial interests of AP (it is old and low-resolution), it is attributed, it cannot be replaced by a free equivalent and it significantly improves the article. Alex Bakharev 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. per BigDT. If someone is trying to argue that this image is iconic, they haven't convinced me. Why is this image considered iconic? The event was historical, yes, and it may be hard to locate a free image, but the publication of this copyrighted news photo on Wikipedia, in exactly the same way that the associated press markets it (to illustrate an informational article) violates point 2 of the fair use policy.
Mango
juice
talk 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Point 2 of WP:FUC says, "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." The obvious implication is that a low res image (such as this one) does not undermine the professional market. If that is wrong, then the wording needs to be changed, but as it stands, then it is not a bar to using agency images as such. Tyrenius 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence for uniqueness. (What’s so unique about it?) No evidence for iconic status. (Is the image readily recognised? Nope.) No exception to the cited counterexample, no clear rationale, so no fair use. —
xyzzy
n 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct that the rationale was missing and it was an oversight. I added the rationale now. --
Irpen 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I don’t have to guess.
;)I agree that free images from Fallujah in April/May 2004 probably don’t exist, but I disagree that this particular image could not be replaced. All we are seeing is a car with too many people inside, some of them with guns, in front of an out-of-focus building. Without the filename and caption, nobody would be able to tell where and when the picture was taken. And I don’t see any ‘crucial content’. — xyzzy n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)- If you think an appropriate caption is necessary, just add it. Our goal here is to produce encyclopedic content. This picture adds to content significantly. We also have to try to make sure this content is as free as reasonably possible. This is the case when free content is impossible. This is precisely what fairuse is for. If you agree that content is good, add the caption, thus adding to the content and making the image even more foolproof compliant. -- Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I don’t have to guess.
- You are correct that the rationale was missing and it was an oversight. I added the rationale now. --
Irpen 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The introduction to
WP:FU is being completely ignored by those wishing to delete the image: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event".
Tyrenius 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phrase ‘not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but […]’ clearly says that the image must in particular qualify for fair use by the usual criteria. This is necessary. All the remaining verbiage is to the effect that even if that first requirement is met, the image might still not be usable here due to the free nature of the project and makes no exception from the normal fair use criteria. —
xyzzy
n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is necessary because it adds crucial content. To what extent it is necessary? would the article without it be totally useless? No. Does the image add to its value significantly? Yes. This is a judgment call and that's where people can disagree. However, the image clearly does not qualify for deletion by a blanket policy. Fairuse images has to be dealt case by case. In my view this case is keep. --
Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, what’s the crucial content there? My objection to this image (and most other recent images from news agencies) is, basically, that, given the way we use them for illustrating articles on related matters, they’re not covered by the
fair use exemption (see the quote from the Copyright Act in the article) and that our rationale for using them almost always reduces to
- We want an image showing the subject matter of foo.
- We can neither make such an image nor pay for any of the images we’ve found so far.
- Ergo, let’s just use it.
- Again, what’s the crucial content there? My objection to this image (and most other recent images from news agencies) is, basically, that, given the way we use them for illustrating articles on related matters, they’re not covered by the
fair use exemption (see the quote from the Copyright Act in the article) and that our rationale for using them almost always reduces to
- Yes, the image is necessary because it adds crucial content. To what extent it is necessary? would the article without it be totally useless? No. Does the image add to its value significantly? Yes. This is a judgment call and that's where people can disagree. However, the image clearly does not qualify for deletion by a blanket policy. Fairuse images has to be dealt case by case. In my view this case is keep. --
Irpen 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phrase ‘not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but […]’ clearly says that the image must in particular qualify for fair use by the usual criteria. This is necessary. All the remaining verbiage is to the effect that even if that first requirement is met, the image might still not be usable here due to the free nature of the project and makes no exception from the normal fair use criteria. —
xyzzy
n 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Illegal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, no "competition" to AP is present here. The fourth fair-use clause does not override entirely the other three (sometimes fair use is possible even with some degree of competition), and it isn't even really appropriately invoked here. Let's go point by point-
1. "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- Use is clearly for nonprofit educational purposes by a recognized nonprofit organization.
2. "The nature of the copyrighted work;"
- A photo which, for the AP's purposes, is nearly useless now. There will be few to no newspapers/magazines/etc. running stories about such old news. It is, however, irreplaceable documentation of a historic event, meaning that its use here is quite valuable.
3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;"
- While it'd be easy to say "Well we're using the whole thing, duh!" that's not true. A low-resolution copy does not have nearly the value of a high-resolution one, and it makes it far more difficult for would-be pirates to use.
4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- As shown above, negligible to none. There is little "market" left for this photo anyway (old news isn't!), and commercial customers (the AP's customer base) will not copy a low-resolution image which will end up getting them sued when they are already in the habit of legally licensing thousands of images from AP.
- To sum up-clear fair use, clear irreplaceability. Let's at least use our fair use rights until the next Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act takes those away too. Seraphimblade 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, you're ignoring the fact that criterion #4 mentions the effect on the value of the work. We have effectively devalued the work by taking it and using it for free, instead of paying for the right to reuse it as AP intended. I remember this was once a very controversial issue on WP when someone wanted to get the picture of the naked napalmed Vietnamese girl deleted. That picture's saving grace, however, was that it was iconic and the subject of an article. This image is not iconic, nor is it the subject of an article (its subject is the subject of an article, however). Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Recall that AP can sell display-resolution photographs for use on the WWW. And your estimate of the market for the picture wouldn’t hold up in court ( WP:FU says it should). Also, you left out quite a bit of the legal text. And, finally, there’s counterexample 5. (By the way, we’re educational? Since when?!) — xyzzy n 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not ignoring that at all, which is why I examined what kind of potential market is left. If there's no market left, we cannot, whatever we do, harm something that no longer exists. I would imagine that over 99% of AP sales are of rights to images which are less than three months old-they sell to news agencies. This one is years old, and nobody wants it. If this photo were a week old, even a month, my evaluation (and my !vote) would have been very different.
- (edit conflict) What the market actually is is absolutely part of any FU court case. While AP can sell display-resolution photos (and they're still not going to sell this one often if ever, at its age), we are a non-profit institution, and the photo was uploaded by an an individual who will not and cannot profit from its use. Even if a slight harm to the market were found, any court would rule that it is negligible and the other parts of fair use far outweigh it. And if AP disagrees, they have but to file a DMCA complaint, and out goes the photo. Of course-one would think a news organization is aware of what the "bad" in "bad press" means, so I very much doubt they'll do that. Seraphimblade 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand why is this bothering you people this much, like Seraphimblade said the image has been on Wikipedia for two years and three months already, why has nobody deleted it before, and the pciture is three years old and AP is not using it any more, nobody want's it why is it a crime then that we use it, the picture is a representation of the insurgent victory in Fallujah, maybe it is not a so famous image like that of the battle of Iwo Jima but it is a fair and good representation of the iraqi insurgent victory, try finding another on good as that one. Top Gun 05:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- There’s a lot of images here that ought to be deleted, and, in comparison, a very small number of people who check images, so it can take a while. Also, Wikipedia’s stance on non-free images has become tougher during the last few years. This is why this image has stayed for so long. And the reason it shouldn’t stay any longer is the WP:FU policy. This is sufficient. Finding a replacement might be urgent if the image was good or important… but it isn’t. — xyzzy n 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- (In reply to xyzzy) The fair use clause doesn't and was never intended to enumerate every possible form of fair use. Website and video game screenshots aren't specifically enumerated in the Copyright Act either, but they're often counted as a fair use. Rather, it gives four evaluation criteria, which I've listed above. (There is no fifth one, and it never does enumerate counterexamples, I'm not sure what your "counterexample 5" refers to.) I'm also not sure how you're saying this is from my imagination-I told you what the Copyright Act says and what the criteria are. Writing this particular encyclopedia is a non-profit and educational use which does not directly interfere with AP's market-in short, it's very likely a fair use. One would imagine AP knows that, and knows how to send a DMCA complaint to Wikimedia if they didn't think so. Betcha they got a copyright lawyer or two around that does that kind of thing. 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I tend to read the whole of the law, and it does enumerate the possible uses. Screenshots are often permissible under ‘criticism’ or ‘comment’ (depending on what one does with them, of course). As for the counterexamples, they’re part of our fair use policy, not the Copyright Act. See WP:FU#Counterexamples. (Sorry I didn’t previously link to that.)
- Writing this encyclopedia may be non-profit, but ‘free’ in ‘the free encyclopedia’ includes the right to sell it (part of the GFDL/ pillar 3) and we must make sure we don’t sabotage that.
- Also, since the WWW is part of AP’s market and Wikipedia is a fairly prominent website, we always interfere. And that AP hasn’t complained thus far is no reason for us to assume their agreement. They don’t need to complain to maintain copyright, and they don’t need to complain about Wikipedia directly—they could just sue all the commercial mirrors one by one.
- The remark noting your imagination was in reply to ‘I would imagine that […] nobody wants it.’ I would imagine the judge might want to see your oracle.
;)— xyzzy n 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)- The judge could see their sales records, one would imagine, and those would probably make quite a fine oracle. :) However, note that fair uses are not enumerated-a set of guidelines which should be considered in each individual case is set forth, but the judge evaluates those guidelines in each case. I get your "imagine" and "counterexample" remarks now, thanks for clarifying those. As to the counterexamples-you are aware that consensus can change, and that the fair use guidelines are under pretty heavy debate right now? Of course, no consensus can go against real legal trouble-but if AP sent in a DMCA complaint (which they would have to do before anything else, since WP complies with the DMCA's safe harbor provision), WP:OFFICE just nukes it from orbit and everything's fine. I consider that...unlikely, however, and even that's an optimistic estimate of the chances. I imagine AP knows it's a likely fair use and doesn't hurt them, and if anything gives them valuable publicity out of an old and nearly-worthless picture. (Now for that one, the judge would have to ask for my oracle, but it tends to work reasonably well.) Seraphimblade 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless they’re future sales records, they’re not an oracle. What if the guy with the microphone kills somebody important next week? The picture would sell quite well, then. Regarding the exact procedure for AP to proceed, please do keep in mind that Wikipedia is copied to a lot more places than the Foundation servers, and many of those places are not 501(c)s. Content must not depend on Wikimedia’s status and popularity.
- Regarding WP:CCC, recall that ‘[t]hat does not mean you should ignore a consensual decision’. Right now, the WP:FU terms reflect consensus. If consensus changes, WP:FU will be adapted, but there’s no deadline for that. In the meantime, we should follow the policy in its current state. — xyzzy n 08:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like that opinions on this image are preaty divided fifty-fifty.— Top Gun 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sadrprotest.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (not an orphan) News media photo, not acceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific public protest, a unique historic event in the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. --
Irpen 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The law specifically considers "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Seeing as AP's livelihood consists of selling the rights to use such images, I think it's clear we're infringing on that market by not paying for the right to use the image. The only cases where we're allowed an escape clause is with truly iconic images like that of the Tiananmen Square guy facing down the tank. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Fairuse provision of the copyright law is much more complex and distinguishes between stealing music and using the copyrighted image of the historic event to illustrate an article devoted to the subject illustrated by the image if the copyright owner is rightfully acknowledged. Similarly, such image is allowed under the Wikipedia policy (much more strict than the fairuse law provisions) since no free image of this event, which already took place in the past can be now made. --
Irpen 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #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" cannot be used on Wikipedia. This isn't just Wikipedia policy - it's keeping in line with US copyright law. "Fair use" allows us to use somebody's work in order to comment on the work itself. It does not allow us to use their work to comment on the subject of the work just to avoid paying royalties. AP/Reuters/whoever make their money by selling rights to redistribute these photos. Then we use them without permission, we are depriving them of the royalties that they are rightfully owed and there's no way that can be called fair use - it's no different from downloading illegal mp3s without buying the CD. --
BigDT 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- KeepThe image must stick. It's a historic event that has to be represented. The Iraq war is an ongoing war and most of the events that happen are just happening so there are no freeuse historical images that can be used. Almost totaly the images of the Iraq war are images from the news agencys you will have a hard time finding sources where they explicitly say "here use this" -- Top Gun 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.It's a valid prepresentation of a historic event, a public protest that has to be represented. — Top Gun 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per BigDT; non-iconic media image of an historic event. Mango juice talk 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Kjetil _r 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sadr.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by 172 ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) News media photo, not acceptable for fair use per WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, unless the photo itself is specifically tagged as an AP photo, it's possible that AP is using it as a free photo themselves. Any evidence of AP copyright on this one? Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Baghdadvendor.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by JMaxwell ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AFP photo, not acceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Story.outside.najaf.tues.5..jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Top Gun ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image is tagged as {{ NoRightsReserved}}, but the photo is creator-marked as "AP PHOTO". News media photos are not acceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ramadi-insurgent3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Top Gun ( notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) AP Photo incorrectly tagged as AllRightsReleased. AP Photos are unacceptable for fair use under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI have put a new tag explaining the need for the pictured in the stated article, by my opinion the picture is need to represent the article in a whole. Also if you would read WP:FAIR#Counterexamples it says that 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. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:FU: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of copyrighted material primarily where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use, but is also, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event". Tyrenius 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per above. -- Irpen 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Image page claims ‘Website publishes photographs with no apparent attempts at copyright’, but gives no source for the image (besides which copyright does not require an explicit assertion beyond ‘I took the picture’). Also claims ‘no loss of commercial viability’, but image is potentially usable in a context where copyright holder would receive licensing fees, and ‘photographs seem to have been implicitly released for widespread public consumption with no interest in authorship rights’, but no reason for this assertion is given. Further claims ‘no suitable alternatives available’, but this is irrelevant for the problem of fair use (and probably false). Image is used in exactly one article,
Battle of Ramadi (2006), and without a specific fair use rationale. Image is perfectly replaceable in that article. Therefore no fair use (and perfect match for the counterexample quoted by
Top Gun). —
xyzzy
n 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You try finding an alternative which depicts the article truthfuly. And my qoute was for If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don’t need to depict the article. The article is the primary content; the images are auxiliary. In terms of replacing it while keeping the article informative, I think a map of the area might do the trick. As for your quote, are you claiming the image itself is newsworthy/notorious? If so, could you please cite some reports about the image? — xyzzy n 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You try finding an alternative which depicts the article truthfuly. And my qoute was for If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.
Top Gun 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legal application of fair use. The purpose this photo was taken by AP for was to depict the event in question - as the purpose of our usage of this photo directly competes with the purpose of AP, and AP's livelihood is selling the rights to use such images, this cannot be legal fair use. (One of the four criteria for fair use examined under the law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.") Although it is unimpeachable that the event cannot be repeated, that a libre image depicting the event cannot be created, etc., none of this matters if the first hurdle (legality) cannot be met. This image is not iconic - as a result, it has nowhere near the same status as the iconic picture of the man in Tiananmen Square, or the naked Vietnamese girl who was napalmed. Those images are iconic - this image is not. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, noniconic photo from a news media source, violates policy. — An gr 10:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.I have added a source link to the page from where the image was taken which proves the image is in free use and that it was not an AP photo. — Top Gun 04:33, 7 January 2007
- Delete per nom, same reasoning as the others. Mango juice talk 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.You just proved my point. First of all I don't see where it says on
the blog that the photo is AP photo but as you said the blog uses it legally in terms of fair use, then why wouldn't we use it also if it is in free use. Try and beet this coment.—
Top Gun 18:05, 7 January 2007
- I did no such thing. The blog (which I advise you to read if you wish to use it as an argument) says that ‘Associated Press "photojournalist" Bilal Hussein […] took the second photo displayed in this post.’ The reason the inclusion of the image in the blog is fair use is that the blog discusses the image (where and when it was taken and how it was presented) and the image is one of the main subjects of the blog entry. This is quite obviously not the case in the sole Wikipedia article which includes the image. By the way, please either log in or sign properly. — xyzzy n 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as noncompeting fair use, but preference to fair use image if any can be found (didn't the Army/Marines take any photos? These would be automatically PD.) Seraphimblade 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Kjetil _r 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coment.I do not understand why is this bothering you people this much the image is a year old already and AP is not using it any more, nobody want's it why is it a crime then that we use it, the picture is a representation of the fighting going on during the Battle of Ramadi. Should the article be without even one picture. It's a representation of the fighting like the images of the street fighting in the article about the battle of Stalingrad. I guess probably that you would say that it would have been OK if it was an image of US Marines taken by them. Well sorry the insurgent said doesn't have official photographer and can only use the free news services like AP, again the images is a year old and AP is not using it anymore and probably never will. so what is the problem.
Top Gun 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- There was a court case [1] in which the court found that a trivia book containing Seinfeld trivia was violating Seinfeld's copyright even though the producers of Seinfeld had never even considered creating such a book themselves. In other words, the fact that they aren't actively marketing the image any more is irrelevant. Wikipedia can be held legally accountable if we are giving these images to ask.com and about.com and other commercial downstream content providers, supplanting the AP's right to sell it. News media photos should be a speedy deletion criterion and probably will at some point if we can ever come up with good wording for it that will exclude anything that could be legitimate. -- BigDT 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted image. The image provides nothing critical to the articles it was linked to and there was no commentary specific to the image in the articles. - Nv8200p talk 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Vantoll.jpg (
talk |
delete)
- Uploaded by Fcbayern55 ( notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic. Vanity; the only page using this image has been deleted. — Carson 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not deleted - uploader not notified - will relist on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 14 -- BigDT 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cairns City Council Crest.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fosnez ( notify | contribs). I uploaded this image, but have found a more up to date one here Image:Cairns City Council.jpg — Fosnez 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Tanner.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Thobin21 ( notify | contribs). Used only in prodded userpage. Wikipedia is not myspace. User has zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CharDirtWorld.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Deperm ( notify | contribs). CharDirtWorld.PNG - obsoleted by Worldmapcolorsm.png -- Deperm 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Joyful kid.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Quadell ( notify | contribs). The photo was sourced from www.sxc.hu and the uploader claims there are "no usage restrictions for this photo", but the licensing terms of the website [2] are clear "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" (their caps). I read this restriction as making the image unsuitable for uploading to Wikipedia and certainly does not allow it to be put into the Public Domain as claimed. — Gwernol 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CVG airfield.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Newstate ( notify | contribs). LQ, OB by CVG_airport_diagram.svg. — grendel| khan 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Image:Google Braille.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Seweso ( notify | contribs). Unlicenced, orphaned, and probably a copyright violation. — Dark jedi requiem 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, copyvio per [3] Argyriou (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gunther6.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tirangaman ( notify | contribs). Watermarked image — CLW 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Graduation fu.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:IM001669a.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Techo_blood ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Losingyou2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ghansman ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB: LQ, photo of album cover where one from a website would be better, no license, but presumed to be fair use album cover MECU≈ talk 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Losingyou1.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ghansman ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, LQ: photo of album cover, whereas one from a website would be better quality, no license, but presumed to be fair use album cover MECU≈ talk 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kalyazin.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by GoOdCoNtEnT ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Image will be useful for Kalyazin when the article gets expanded enough to fit more than one image. -- Irpen 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason as to why delete the image... It is PD and we can defenetly add it to Kalyazin article. There are millions of orphaned images, why delete them all? — dima /s-ko/ 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (LQ). The composition is very poor, with nothing visible in the foreground and only a fuzzy view of the St. Nicholas belltower in the far distance. I can't see how this image could possibly enhance any article, except perhaps as an example of poor photography. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CNV00027.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Markus2004 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Chevy colorado.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Sjh123 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, article already has 3 (plenty) of this subject MECU≈ talk 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Faridpur.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Shefa ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, "personal"? MECU≈ talk 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:STS-121 debris clear.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Richard_Taylor ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Beatrix.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by William_Pembroke ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:HSV models.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by (3ucky(3all ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MikeOnTheMillenniumForce.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Mikedk9109 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:SPPL-Example.gif ( talk | delete)
Image:Mr wichtowsi dispaly.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jimothytrotter ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Trevor heseton.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:French Inhale.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Yankeefan3457 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Donald North Court.jpg ( talk | delete)
This Photo is for the Camp Yawgoog Article, to enhance it. I don't see why this should be deleted as I took this photo (and release it, as long as some word of credit goes to me)and does not violate any policys. KB1KOI 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- To translate the reasons in the nomination, it’s not currently used anywhere and its purpose is not self-evident. Would you consider uploading it at Commons? Then even if it is deleted here, it could be included in articles later on. — xyzzy n 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist xyzzy. This image isn't used on Wikipedia and I don't know why we should have it here. You said it's for Camp Yawgoog, but you aren't using it. Why not? And, I think it should be deleted off Wikipedia, even if used, and exist on commons. If you are uploading your own pictures, and willing to release them, then you should upload them to commons. Once this exists on commons, it can be deleted here. -- MECU≈ talk 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:STEREOSUPERNOVA.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by MartinConnolly ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:James in front of white house.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamesd1118 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Michpfeiffer.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Warholmuse ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, copyvio MECU≈ talk 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I support the deletion, but if the image is obviously incorrectly licensed (promo image, logo, screenshot, album/book/newspaper cover), be WP:BOLD bold and change the license on the image page and then nominate as an orphaned fair use; it does not need to come here. Just make sure your edit summary is clear about why your changing the license. If there is any question about the license, bring it here, but it is remarkable the number of images that are mis-licensed.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Old English table knife.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by David_R._Ingham ( notify | contribs). Or, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blacksod.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Solidenterprises ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0155.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Sufi633 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Black screen of death.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Solidenterprises ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mantingsmall.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB, possible copyvio from source MECU≈ talk 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Doorlongsmall.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PoleBig.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Spiralysispainting.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Spiralysis ( notify | contribs). OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:206royalanncherryclose.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:01sasquatchhail.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Donnybrook Sign.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Attentionspanltd ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, which Donnybrook is it? only contrib by uploader MECU≈ talk 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:63europeanbeechleaves.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:06sasquatch1.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Royalanncherrycontext2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:04sasquatchcardboardboxes.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Hiddenrape.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Bladeroom ( notify | contribs). Warning: adult content, OR, UE?, AB MECU≈ talk 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stuffedbuffalo.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Hidebanner.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:08gorge2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a free file host (has many listed above already) MECU≈ talk 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sumidero high point.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mazuntesmallturtle.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:09beckpuppet.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jamidwyer ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, WP:NOT a FFH MECU≈ talk 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Craig-web BEST crop 50 shadow.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Cfellen ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Appears to be some sort of butter knife.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by David_R._Ingham ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:AL-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CYP-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:ETH-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PRO-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:BU-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PARGY-LAD.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Meodipt ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This structure is wrong" per User:Cacycle MECU≈ talk 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:MKD(LION).gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Vlatkoto ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely incorrect license, fair use logo, orphaned MECU≈ talk 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Morborne.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Ayers rock 3.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Lincolnwong ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ, article already has better images MECU≈ talk 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:PIC 0070.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Barnstar(1).png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Michaelas10 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, barnstar that doesn't appear to be any different or special MECU≈ talk 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, this is a failed candidate for barnstar change, but I've previously removed the proposal per duplication concerns. I've now added the speedy deletion tag to it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:CIMG0446.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Clocksmith23 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only 2 contribs by uploader, other redundant image of this one MECU≈ talk 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sagar University Mono.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jsx1200 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely incorrect license, fair use logo, orphaned MECU≈ talk 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 6187.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Bcbsgei.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Pradyothkumar ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, google earth image, incorrect license MECU≈ talk 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mixedbreed.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Cherylrenee ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Jelloshot.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Polylerus ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ, page already has suitable image MECU≈ talk 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- On Commons - Nv8200p talk 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:USA North Korea Locator.PNG ( talk | delete)
Image:HPIM0629b.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:PPUSAplain 300ppi.png ( talk | delete)
Image:PP of US - white.png ( talk | delete)
Image:PPUS.png ( talk | delete)
Image:1 (10).jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Decree.PNG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by JzG ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, cabal-istic not in Wikipedia's best interest MECU≈ talk 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, funny. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as creator. There is no cabal. And if you delete this, The Cabal will be after you. Guy ( Help!) 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Speedily?) delete (no references, exact duplicate of Image:Decree.png). Re nom’s reasons re actual image: used only in WP: namespace, so UE unobjection; cabal unobjection allwhere. — xyzzy n 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I hope OR here doesn't mean WP:OR? Anyway - per Guy, TINC, and I'd argue that it is in the best interests of the 'pedia - we use it as an informal way to let users new and old know that there is no cabal, and they have nothing to fear. Mart inp23 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have tagged it with {{ nowcommonsthis}}. There's no particular reason to keep it since it is on Commons. It can be speedied in a week. -- BigDT 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as orphaned copy of (very useful) image now at commons. Eluchil404 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Watervalemap.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by WhippetGood ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Debrecen.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Copy of hazara boy.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Beh-nam ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, source link dead MECU≈ talk 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kimjongil-nowave.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Signincreate ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-01.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-02.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-03.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-04.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-06.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-07.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-08.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Monument in Winter.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Doctor-of-fostat ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dublin-zoo-09.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Fountain_ie ( notify | contribs). OR, LQ MECU≈ talk 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Peggys Cove Light House.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Wooden spoon - for sale.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ian_the_Nut ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:H varwinter1.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Barrett.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tvfan1 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio, incorrect license MECU≈ talk 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wafflesthegoat.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Update 017.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wakeupnewyork ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, few contribs by uploader MECU≈ talk 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pojat1.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:Smilesmile.png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Smilesmilemusic ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio MECU≈ talk 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:ToshibaSatellite1800.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by M1chaelz0r ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, LQ, imaged used in article and later removed MECU≈ talk 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kerri-dunn.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Whithulme ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, inserted into article and later removed, likely copyvio, fair use would be replaceable MECU≈ talk 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lewiss.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Picture 201.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Sk10000.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wd1040 ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, might be fair use orphaned MECU≈ talk 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You can use it in the "South Korean Won" article. I just don't know how to load it. The Caption should say "New SKW 10000 Note"
Image:Abysinniayarrow.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by PopUpPirate ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I took the picture, uploaded it correctly, and it has been listed for deletion, in a bulk delete - ridiculous tbh! Ho hum! -- PopUpPirate 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) KEEP -- PopUpPirate 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, Wikipedia does not normally keep images that are not used in any articles, but anything that is of good quality and freely licensed (as this one is) can be moved to
Commons so that they can be used on other Wikimedia projects. --
BigDT 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this image is now in use, I have added it to WP:TROLL#Misidentified trolls. It's a perfect picture to illustrate that part of the essay. -- BigDT 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bailey.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wafflesonstanchion.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wafflesthegoat ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0442.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Pavelgri ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, YAPP, Warning: adult content MECU≈ talk 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mati panorama3.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Talking with voter.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Wolfae ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely not GDFL MECU≈ talk 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Merilyn Sakova 1.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Ace1213 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, only contrib by user, likely not GDFL MECU≈ talk 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blackandtan.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Introv3rt ( notify | contribs). OR, AB, few contribs by user (other image redudant) MECU≈ talk 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Brighton Beach UKs thong capital.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay2.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Aam422 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈ talk 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bombay11.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Aam422 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈ talk 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bombay13.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay15.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay20.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay23.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bombay26.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:CrimsonScarlet.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Lil-old-me ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:SabotHole.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Jeffcapo.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:QueenofMagic.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:B-24Stripped.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:BioSc3.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Bio-Photo retouched.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Rubiconsound ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sanzio-detail.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Dr._Avi_Stein ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:StatusofUSEqualRightsAmendment.svg ( talk | delete)
Image:Walmart Neighborhood Market2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:SELogo.gif ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Tmt27 ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, possible copyvio, 3 contribs by user (2 on this image) MECU≈ talk 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bllix 2006.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Salon.com screenshot (Jul-06-06).png ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Artificialard ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB MECU≈ talk 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Heech standing.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Standing heech.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:The Wharf day mono.JPG ( talk | delete)
Image:MVPmods.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Kccitystar ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, used in AFD article MECU≈ talk 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Karachi at night.jpg ( talk | delete)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. It doesn't really belong here, but it's a great photo. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted from Wikipedia. Now on Commons - Nv8200p talk 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mercury Capsule2.gif ( talk | delete)
Image:Neander Valley Map.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Jason_Potter ( notify | contribs). OR, UE, "This image gives the position as about 150 km too far to the east." MECU≈ talk 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ppc edit 1.2.jpg ( talk | delete)
Image:Sheboygan Rotary Sign.png ( talk | delete)
Image:Cfsmoppingup.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Emmanuellives ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons. It's worth keeping. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bushfire1.JPG ( talk | delete)
- Uploaded by Emmanuellives ( notify | contribs). OR, UE MECU≈ talk 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Free and usable. -- Irpen 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)