was deleted from commons for being a derivative of a copyrighted work of art (the photograph that this photograph is of is copyrighted itself)
Yonatantalk04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose This image is a low quality photograph of a photograph. Not only does it most likely fall under fair use because of its low quality but also I was given permission to photograph the photograph gallery of the Churchill Museum, who themselves hold the ability to reproduce the photographs themselves. Therfore this photograph is merely an extension falls under the rights of their copyright use.
LordHarris21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Subject of an article currently being argued on BLP grounds; these pictures were originally put up for speedy by
User:Longhair, but in the interest of fostering discussion on the matter I'm taking them to IFD instead. They were uploaded by
User:Mariamarcen, whom based on their other uploads, is suspected by
User:Hfarmer to be the subject of the article, and thus the owner and releaser of the pictures. However, this cannot be proven, the user having not made a statement either way, let alone a reliably sourced one, and therefore we cannot be sure. I have no opinion on this IFD - I am just moving it from speedy to IFD for the greater community to have a look at. Other images uploaded by
User:Mariamarcen include
Image:Miriam4.jpg and
Image:Miriam as a boy.jpg, which were not put up by speedy by
User:Longhair but I mention them here because they suffer from the same lack-of-source-but-possibly-uploaded-by-subject-of-picture issue. I will finally note that
User:Mariamarcen has not edited since April 2006, so it is unlikely they will be able to contribute to this discussion. —
Golbez05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
For the benefit of this page here is my position, in short. The pictures were added by none other than
Miriam Rivera herself, or someone acting on her behalf with her approval. A picture from grade school and a picture that looks as if it was taken by her would be impossible for anyone but Miriam or a family member to come by. Then there is the history of contributions by the person who added the pictures.
User:Mariamarcen seems to be rather knowledgeable about topics related to the very subculture Miriam lives in. If this is not proof, what would be? An "established wikipedia presence" as a contributor to be honest that could be faked. A signed notarized legal affadavit with witnesses? That would be proof but come on what other image has that kind of heavy requierment on it? By the same standards that are actually in practice on wikipedia these pictures seem to be just fine.--
Hfarmer09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that this image (
Image:Miriam3.jpg) comes under the fair use rationale as 1) it was provided as a promotional image by the subject herself 2) it is solely used to illustrate the subject in question (
Miriam Rivera) and 3) a suitable free image is not readily available in this case, nor will it likely be. -
Alison☺17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that photo was taken by
Maya Guez. If so, getting it released should be pretty easy by contacting her directly. However, Miriam modeled with a few big-name photographers who probably would not release their work into the public domain. I suggest we delete this and contact Maya for a GFDL-released image.
Jokestress19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you have her phone number or email address...wait I belive that Maya Guez has a biographical page here and has been involved in editing it. I will see if she will respond to this right here.--
Hfarmer23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have left a message on her talk page. Can we give this some time to work. afterall this pic has been here for a while if anyone was going to sue I think it would have happened by now. a few more days could not hurt much more. --
Hfarmer23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
We don't upload images first and get permissions later. This should be deleted until properly sourced and cleared. Most photographers will respond better to that kind of request, rather than, "Hey, we have been using your photo and now want permission."
Jokestress19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The question rest on who was
User:Mariamarcen and how did they have access to the pictures they posted? Take a close look at what that user did while she was active here. I know that particular intreest is not unique but taken with the scarcity of all those pictures (i.e. the subject of the pictures as a child. I am unable to imagine how anyone else could have obtained that one.) There is every reason to believe that Miriam herself put those pictures in the article. Only a special overabundance of caution could justify removing these. --
Hfarmer02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Miriam "before" picture was widely published in 2004 during the airing of the show. That does not mean it is released into the public domain, even if Miriam gave it to newspapers herself. Please review
Wikipedia:Copyrights. Any speculation on who uploaded it is unproven and irrelevant. The bottom line is that these images do not have proper clearance, and thus violate policy.
Jokestress18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Really? Where else have you seen it. Many people on HA men and TS some of who are fans of hers seemed to have never seen it before. I'm not calling you a liar I just want to check your claim. For if what you say is true then you have a point. If not then I have a point. --
Hfarmer00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is a phostoshoped collage of multiple images from various sources. None of these sources is cited. Cited source is a holding space at another web site. —
J Greb05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
We aren't responsible for collages the _copyright owner_ makes themselves. To ask us to identify the source of the original images in that case is absurd.
Nardman102:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've reuploaded the All Hallows seal (which most recently occupied this slot) under a more descriptive name and adjusted the referencing page. This image is, therefore, now orphaned. -- SteinbDJ ·
talk ·
contributions12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
no rationale, assumes public domain but ww2incolor is a notorious ripoff site that scans color images from books discarding the copyright information- no claim that the image is PD is made on the site, no detail as to who took the image are made, most likely a German photographer placing the image under German copyright law. Examples of the aircraft are
preserved anyway meaning use of a picture with no details just plain lazy. —
Fluffy99915:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
was deleted from commons for being a derivative of a copyrighted work of art (the photograph that this photograph is of is copyrighted itself)
Yonatantalk04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose This image is a low quality photograph of a photograph. Not only does it most likely fall under fair use because of its low quality but also I was given permission to photograph the photograph gallery of the Churchill Museum, who themselves hold the ability to reproduce the photographs themselves. Therfore this photograph is merely an extension falls under the rights of their copyright use.
LordHarris21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Subject of an article currently being argued on BLP grounds; these pictures were originally put up for speedy by
User:Longhair, but in the interest of fostering discussion on the matter I'm taking them to IFD instead. They were uploaded by
User:Mariamarcen, whom based on their other uploads, is suspected by
User:Hfarmer to be the subject of the article, and thus the owner and releaser of the pictures. However, this cannot be proven, the user having not made a statement either way, let alone a reliably sourced one, and therefore we cannot be sure. I have no opinion on this IFD - I am just moving it from speedy to IFD for the greater community to have a look at. Other images uploaded by
User:Mariamarcen include
Image:Miriam4.jpg and
Image:Miriam as a boy.jpg, which were not put up by speedy by
User:Longhair but I mention them here because they suffer from the same lack-of-source-but-possibly-uploaded-by-subject-of-picture issue. I will finally note that
User:Mariamarcen has not edited since April 2006, so it is unlikely they will be able to contribute to this discussion. —
Golbez05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
For the benefit of this page here is my position, in short. The pictures were added by none other than
Miriam Rivera herself, or someone acting on her behalf with her approval. A picture from grade school and a picture that looks as if it was taken by her would be impossible for anyone but Miriam or a family member to come by. Then there is the history of contributions by the person who added the pictures.
User:Mariamarcen seems to be rather knowledgeable about topics related to the very subculture Miriam lives in. If this is not proof, what would be? An "established wikipedia presence" as a contributor to be honest that could be faked. A signed notarized legal affadavit with witnesses? That would be proof but come on what other image has that kind of heavy requierment on it? By the same standards that are actually in practice on wikipedia these pictures seem to be just fine.--
Hfarmer09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that this image (
Image:Miriam3.jpg) comes under the fair use rationale as 1) it was provided as a promotional image by the subject herself 2) it is solely used to illustrate the subject in question (
Miriam Rivera) and 3) a suitable free image is not readily available in this case, nor will it likely be. -
Alison☺17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that photo was taken by
Maya Guez. If so, getting it released should be pretty easy by contacting her directly. However, Miriam modeled with a few big-name photographers who probably would not release their work into the public domain. I suggest we delete this and contact Maya for a GFDL-released image.
Jokestress19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you have her phone number or email address...wait I belive that Maya Guez has a biographical page here and has been involved in editing it. I will see if she will respond to this right here.--
Hfarmer23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have left a message on her talk page. Can we give this some time to work. afterall this pic has been here for a while if anyone was going to sue I think it would have happened by now. a few more days could not hurt much more. --
Hfarmer23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
We don't upload images first and get permissions later. This should be deleted until properly sourced and cleared. Most photographers will respond better to that kind of request, rather than, "Hey, we have been using your photo and now want permission."
Jokestress19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The question rest on who was
User:Mariamarcen and how did they have access to the pictures they posted? Take a close look at what that user did while she was active here. I know that particular intreest is not unique but taken with the scarcity of all those pictures (i.e. the subject of the pictures as a child. I am unable to imagine how anyone else could have obtained that one.) There is every reason to believe that Miriam herself put those pictures in the article. Only a special overabundance of caution could justify removing these. --
Hfarmer02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Miriam "before" picture was widely published in 2004 during the airing of the show. That does not mean it is released into the public domain, even if Miriam gave it to newspapers herself. Please review
Wikipedia:Copyrights. Any speculation on who uploaded it is unproven and irrelevant. The bottom line is that these images do not have proper clearance, and thus violate policy.
Jokestress18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Really? Where else have you seen it. Many people on HA men and TS some of who are fans of hers seemed to have never seen it before. I'm not calling you a liar I just want to check your claim. For if what you say is true then you have a point. If not then I have a point. --
Hfarmer00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is a phostoshoped collage of multiple images from various sources. None of these sources is cited. Cited source is a holding space at another web site. —
J Greb05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
We aren't responsible for collages the _copyright owner_ makes themselves. To ask us to identify the source of the original images in that case is absurd.
Nardman102:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've reuploaded the All Hallows seal (which most recently occupied this slot) under a more descriptive name and adjusted the referencing page. This image is, therefore, now orphaned. -- SteinbDJ ·
talk ·
contributions12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
no rationale, assumes public domain but ww2incolor is a notorious ripoff site that scans color images from books discarding the copyright information- no claim that the image is PD is made on the site, no detail as to who took the image are made, most likely a German photographer placing the image under German copyright law. Examples of the aircraft are
preserved anyway meaning use of a picture with no details just plain lazy. —
Fluffy99915:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply