The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep encyclopaedic image of an algae species. No article exists for the species yet, but it's a difficult to replace image.
WilyD 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It should probably be moved to the
Commons then. —
Bkell (
talk) 23:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Used only in
KHE, which has been
listed for deletion; probably unencyclopedic if KHE is deleted. Also the uploader claims PD-self but gives a URL as the source. —
Bkell (
talk) 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
believe it or not, there is no evidence this was an insurgent video, it was first released by the associated press not through terrorist outlets, every website with this photo says copyright of AP
Bleh999 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is copyright of Khalid Mohammed/AP
[2], it is a work for hire for AP, the camera man was not an insurgent. The current rationale is bogus No loss of commercial viability, freely distributed to media outlets for maximum exposure by the original cameraman Khalid Mohammed has taken numerous images for AP and appears to be a press employee, no one can release a copyrighted image or video into the public domain, maybe this image could be used as fair use in an article that directly discusses the image itself, but right now it's being used in 7 articles, that is not a legitimate use of fair use unfortunately.
Bleh999 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose deletion on attribution history grounds, even though PD doesn't require this. Also the user has not linked to the supposed better version of this image. -
N 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What are you talking about. I have listed the better version already.
John Smith's 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think you should have just uploaded over the old version. howcheng {
chat} 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to do that, you see.
John Smith's 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose deletion on attribution history grounds, even though PD doesn't require this. Also the user has not linked to the supposed better version of this image. -
N 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What are you talking about. I have listed the better version already.
John Smith's 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Now on commons. However I would like to note that we can never discard the original version of an image that has been cropped, especially one with a GFDL license such as this one. To do so would violate the GFDL. -
N 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This one is a slightly different case.
Image:Geisha Kyoto Gion.jpg was uploaded originally by User:ToddLara (see
log) and moved to Commons via the {{NowCommons}} process, so while
Image:Geisha kyoto.jpg might be a larger/uncropped version, the modifications were done by the original photographer, so it's no big deal to delete this one. howcheng {
chat} 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a cast photo for a TV show. I don't think it shows anything that free photos of the actors would not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is also a cast photo for a TV show. Although the characters are in police uniforms, I question whether this image shows anything that free images of actors would not. Thoughts? –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If you view it as an ensemble of characters, rather than actors, it seems like a straightforward fairuse claim (although *some* might argue screenshots impinge less on commercial value). In more extreme cases, it's obvious that free image of actors cannot replace images of characters -
this image cannot hope to replace
this image, and even
this image cannot hope to replace
this image. How far does this principle extend? It's not clear. Full uniforms + (little) makeup? A free photo of the actors probably wouldn't convey the same impression.
WilyD 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete because if it's really from FOX.com (no link provided) it's not promotional at all. FOX.com's images are produced to enhance their site, not ours. Their terms of use make it perfectly clear that we are not welcome to reuse the material as "promotional". --Abu badali(
talk) 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is being used to illustrate the article about the person depicted on the cover. The cover does not contain any critical commentary about the film or the DVD cover, and it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject per
WP:NFCC#8.
Videmus Omnia 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free film screenshot which doesn't show anything more than what's already in the text, thus failing
WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {
chat} 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
there is no need a for a low quality non free image of a living subject to illustrate the article, besides the fair use rationale is incorrect since it mentions a 'non profit educational' clause of the fair use law, that can't be used since it violates wikipedia policy on non commerical restrictions
Bleh999 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, there is a need for a fair use image, since it's going to be difficult to find a public domain "mugshot", and this clearly satisfies every aspect of FU, even if the "educational" part was misguided.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
He is still alive and has been photographed by the media in interviews since being released, why does it need to be a mugshot for his biography?
Bleh999 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, because that is the person who was arrested - he was a kid, not a middle-aged man at the time. Secondly, because it is a far lesser trespass on intellectual rights to use a police photograph, than a media photograph. Your best bet though, if you want a "friendly" image, is to find a way to contact his family (his mother used to be quite prolific and media-friendly) and ask for the release of a personal photograph.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Formerly used in now-deleted article "Ian Linnegan" (see log). It is my opinion that no there is no further use for this image, now that the article is deleted.
Iamunknown 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Clear copyvio. Uploader specifies that the picture was taken from a TV screenshot of the Old Grey Whistle Test. Uploader does not own the rights to this. —
The Parsnip! 19:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-notable unfree screenshot showing a musician holding a microphone. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-notable unfreee screenshot showing a musician an an instrument doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-free mugshot aparently used solely to illustrate the information that the person in question was "mug-shotted". It doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with free material. Abu badali(
talk) 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Certainly the image was iconic, and was commented on specifically (more than just the fact of his pro-forma arrest). The article doesn't go into that, though, unfortunately. It should. When the article is expanded to document the reaction this particular photo caused, the image should be re-uploaded, I think. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
nbc.com is not a source for promotional material. Their images are produced to enhance their site (and those of their partners), not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This issue was already discussed before refer to the link below
BCV 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
IFD discussion
This image was nominated for
deletion on 2006 July 5. The result of the
discussion was keep.
Keep Verifiable source defining it as a promotional image. Given the fact The West Wing is out of production and not aired on NBC should answer the exclusivity of this picture.
BCV 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What source, may I ask, defines it as a "promotional image"? --
Iamunknown 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was mistaken the first time around for Allison Janney as my understanding of image policies and their enforcement has become more nuanced over the past year. Recommend replacement with a still frame from an episode, although personally this character article is too
in-universe and rather crufty for my tastes. howcheng {
chat} 19:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't know that I would call the decision a year ago wrong - it was consistent with the way we did things at the time. We no longer take an attitude of "if it's on their website, it must be promotional" - we would only use this photo if it were verifiably a part of a press kit. --
BigΔT 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep encyclopaedic image of an algae species. No article exists for the species yet, but it's a difficult to replace image.
WilyD 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It should probably be moved to the
Commons then. —
Bkell (
talk) 23:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Used only in
KHE, which has been
listed for deletion; probably unencyclopedic if KHE is deleted. Also the uploader claims PD-self but gives a URL as the source. —
Bkell (
talk) 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
believe it or not, there is no evidence this was an insurgent video, it was first released by the associated press not through terrorist outlets, every website with this photo says copyright of AP
Bleh999 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is copyright of Khalid Mohammed/AP
[2], it is a work for hire for AP, the camera man was not an insurgent. The current rationale is bogus No loss of commercial viability, freely distributed to media outlets for maximum exposure by the original cameraman Khalid Mohammed has taken numerous images for AP and appears to be a press employee, no one can release a copyrighted image or video into the public domain, maybe this image could be used as fair use in an article that directly discusses the image itself, but right now it's being used in 7 articles, that is not a legitimate use of fair use unfortunately.
Bleh999 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose deletion on attribution history grounds, even though PD doesn't require this. Also the user has not linked to the supposed better version of this image. -
N 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What are you talking about. I have listed the better version already.
John Smith's 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think you should have just uploaded over the old version. howcheng {
chat} 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to do that, you see.
John Smith's 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose deletion on attribution history grounds, even though PD doesn't require this. Also the user has not linked to the supposed better version of this image. -
N 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What are you talking about. I have listed the better version already.
John Smith's 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Now on commons. However I would like to note that we can never discard the original version of an image that has been cropped, especially one with a GFDL license such as this one. To do so would violate the GFDL. -
N 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This one is a slightly different case.
Image:Geisha Kyoto Gion.jpg was uploaded originally by User:ToddLara (see
log) and moved to Commons via the {{NowCommons}} process, so while
Image:Geisha kyoto.jpg might be a larger/uncropped version, the modifications were done by the original photographer, so it's no big deal to delete this one. howcheng {
chat} 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a cast photo for a TV show. I don't think it shows anything that free photos of the actors would not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is also a cast photo for a TV show. Although the characters are in police uniforms, I question whether this image shows anything that free images of actors would not. Thoughts? –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If you view it as an ensemble of characters, rather than actors, it seems like a straightforward fairuse claim (although *some* might argue screenshots impinge less on commercial value). In more extreme cases, it's obvious that free image of actors cannot replace images of characters -
this image cannot hope to replace
this image, and even
this image cannot hope to replace
this image. How far does this principle extend? It's not clear. Full uniforms + (little) makeup? A free photo of the actors probably wouldn't convey the same impression.
WilyD 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete because if it's really from FOX.com (no link provided) it's not promotional at all. FOX.com's images are produced to enhance their site, not ours. Their terms of use make it perfectly clear that we are not welcome to reuse the material as "promotional". --Abu badali(
talk) 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is being used to illustrate the article about the person depicted on the cover. The cover does not contain any critical commentary about the film or the DVD cover, and it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject per
WP:NFCC#8.
Videmus Omnia 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free film screenshot which doesn't show anything more than what's already in the text, thus failing
WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {
chat} 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
there is no need a for a low quality non free image of a living subject to illustrate the article, besides the fair use rationale is incorrect since it mentions a 'non profit educational' clause of the fair use law, that can't be used since it violates wikipedia policy on non commerical restrictions
Bleh999 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, there is a need for a fair use image, since it's going to be difficult to find a public domain "mugshot", and this clearly satisfies every aspect of FU, even if the "educational" part was misguided.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
He is still alive and has been photographed by the media in interviews since being released, why does it need to be a mugshot for his biography?
Bleh999 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, because that is the person who was arrested - he was a kid, not a middle-aged man at the time. Secondly, because it is a far lesser trespass on intellectual rights to use a police photograph, than a media photograph. Your best bet though, if you want a "friendly" image, is to find a way to contact his family (his mother used to be quite prolific and media-friendly) and ask for the release of a personal photograph.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Formerly used in now-deleted article "Ian Linnegan" (see log). It is my opinion that no there is no further use for this image, now that the article is deleted.
Iamunknown 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Clear copyvio. Uploader specifies that the picture was taken from a TV screenshot of the Old Grey Whistle Test. Uploader does not own the rights to this. —
The Parsnip! 19:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-notable unfree screenshot showing a musician holding a microphone. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-notable unfreee screenshot showing a musician an an instrument doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary non-free mugshot aparently used solely to illustrate the information that the person in question was "mug-shotted". It doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with free material. Abu badali(
talk) 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Certainly the image was iconic, and was commented on specifically (more than just the fact of his pro-forma arrest). The article doesn't go into that, though, unfortunately. It should. When the article is expanded to document the reaction this particular photo caused, the image should be re-uploaded, I think. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
nbc.com is not a source for promotional material. Their images are produced to enhance their site (and those of their partners), not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This issue was already discussed before refer to the link below
BCV 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
IFD discussion
This image was nominated for
deletion on 2006 July 5. The result of the
discussion was keep.
Keep Verifiable source defining it as a promotional image. Given the fact The West Wing is out of production and not aired on NBC should answer the exclusivity of this picture.
BCV 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
What source, may I ask, defines it as a "promotional image"? --
Iamunknown 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was mistaken the first time around for Allison Janney as my understanding of image policies and their enforcement has become more nuanced over the past year. Recommend replacement with a still frame from an episode, although personally this character article is too
in-universe and rather crufty for my tastes. howcheng {
chat} 19:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't know that I would call the decision a year ago wrong - it was consistent with the way we did things at the time. We no longer take an attitude of "if it's on their website, it must be promotional" - we would only use this photo if it were verifiably a part of a press kit. --
BigΔT 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply