orphaned image, absent uploader, question licensing tags applied given quality of image and other images mis-tagged by user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Fails
fair use. Thousands of images of this guy exist. Just because one editor can't secure a free one doesn't mean we get to pirate an AP photographer's work. The uploader's argument that he's tried to find a free image but failed is counterintuitive. If we get to pirate an AP photographer's work because one editor can't find a free image, what's our motivation to even look? —
Rklawton 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As I noted on the talk page, I made several good faith efforts to try and secure a free image and failing that looked through the qualifications
WP:FAIRUSE and picked an image that seemed to best fulfill those categories (including making proper attribution to the source which is counterintuitive to "pirating" something). The hang up that RkLawton seems to have is over the "hypothetical assumption" that there simply must be free alternatives somewhere that someone will eventually bring to the article sometimes. In the vast majority of circumstances, I actually fall into the same camp as RkLawton when it comes to fair use. I work on a lot of wine articles and have been searching for images to use on some BLPs like
Toby Meltzer. In those cases I refuse to consider a fair use images because I know the very nature of those subjects means that a fair and rational opportunity to procure a free image exist and I feel that the onus is me (or any other editor) wanting to have an image to go out and take one if all else fails. However in the case of a decease individual the pool of potential free images is dramatically reduced. The opportunity for a wikipedia editor to grab their camera and snap a picture (or ask someone to do it for them) is eliminated and the current existing resources is very finite. This creates an inherent
systematic bias towards images for articles of living people and non-human objects at the expense of the encyclopedic quality and service of articles about deceased individuals. I certainly tried to find a free article and I will gladly accept any provided replacement but its hard to sacrifice the quality of an article based upon a vague and "hypothetical assumption" that the image is "replaceable" and that there simply must be some free image out there. In reading
WP:FAIRUSE, the "replaceable" clause seems very vague and subjective in application and I don't think it adequately addresses the limited opportunity and free use potential with deceased subjects. If the community consensus of Wikipedia is to go full tilt with the "hypothetical assumptions" of existing free use images out there then I really don't think there is any point in having
WP:FAIRUSE at all. In theory anything is replaceable because under some rock somewhere could exist a free picture just waiting to be uploaded.
AgneCheese/
Wine 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That reasoning might be good enough for a published publicity photo, but there's certainly no excuse for pirating an AP photographer's work.
Rklawton 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I have to say you are closing in the incivility line (especially with the edit summary "stealing is stealing") and I would appreciate if you took a step back from that line. One does not steal something that they are properly attributing to the source and AP photographer, in accordance to
WP:FAIRUSE. Also in accordance to
WP:FAIRUSE, I deliberately selected the poorest quality version of that photograph out the three copies that I found on purpose to ensure that there was no damage to the copyright holder's ability to use the image commercially or to allow others to make copies and truly "pirate" the image. I have made every effort to respect and attribute the work of the original photographer (including attempting to find contact information on the individual to directly ask for permission but several days of searching has not come up with anything). I would appreciate if you extend a bit of civil respect and good faith to one of your fellow editors and not so liberally accuse people of stealing or pirating.
AgneCheese/
Wine 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
"It's not stealing because I properly attributed the source and the photographer" is one of the myths of copyright. I'm not saying you did steal, I'm just saying that it isn't a valid defense against accusations of copyright infringement.
Anrie 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I keep telling you that these images are used not just on CBS.com, but on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com may have deals with other websites (or magazines, whatever) to let them use their images under certain circumstances. The terms of use of sites like tv.yahoo.com or imdb.com, for instance, make it clear that they have deals with content providers like cbs. But for a normal person downloading one of the images from the cbs.com website, the binding deal is their terms of use document, that clearly states that those images are not promotional material. They are for personal and non-commercial use only.
Also, being "way better than any screenshot" is not a good fair use claim. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I still stand by what I said. There is no reason why these images should not be kept. They are to illustrate copyrighted characters, therefore there is NO "free" replacement. If CBS (or Yahoo, or any of the other given sites) complain, that would be a good reason to delete the image. That has not happened. Images from official sites such as CBS.com, NBC.com, ABC.com, etc, are widely used in Wikipedia articles to illustrate soap opera characters. Some examples:
Marlena Evans,
Lucas Roberts,
Lulu Spencer.
Kogsquinge 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
If you need to illustrate fiction characters from tv or movies, use screenshots. While not free, they have a sound fair use rationale. Fair use allow us to use a portion of a copyrighted work when discussing that copyrighted work itself. While a screenshot is a portion of the copyrighted movie or tv show in question, theses images are complete and independent copyrighted works. They were produced by they copyright owners to be used by them, either on their websites or on those of it's affiliates or clients. There's a whole business model based on internet by-products of tv-shows, and these images were produced to be used in this market. We can't simply use them in our website without competing with their original market role. --Abu badali(
talk) 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay, but aside from the fact that the quality of screenshots is extremely inferior to that of the CBS photos, I have not been able to FIND any screenshots that are not from sites such as CBS.com.
Kogsquinge 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I keep telling you that these images are used not just on CBS.com, but on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promotional material. Source is a fansite. Abu badali(
talk) 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
fantasysoapnet.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours (see "terms of use"). Abu badali(
talk) 14:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source is a fansite. Abu badali(
talk) 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source for promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Is not a website screenshot (incorrectly tagged), and is copyrighted. No appropriate fair use rationale given. Uploader has been notified.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. I just removed it (and a whole bunch of other wrapper images) from
Kit Kat, where they were simply being used in a gallery, which fails points 3 and 8 of the
Wikipedia non-free content policy. This particular image claims
NoRightsReserved, but it's a candy bar wrapper, and it is very unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright to this design. —
Bkell (
talk) 17:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I took the photo myself and cropped it down, which is why I used the tag I did, but if doing so infringes the copyright of the wrapper design itself, then do please delete.
CLW 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Apparently cropped from an album cover, but not being used to illustrate the album in question. Also this is an image of a living person which merely shows what he looks like. See the eighth, and maybe the second,
example of unacceptable use. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Appears to be cropped from an album cover, therefore violating free use since it's used on the
Charlie Christian article and not on the article about the album that it was the cover of. —
Corvus cornix 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, question licensing tags applied given quality of image and other images mis-tagged by user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Fails
fair use. Thousands of images of this guy exist. Just because one editor can't secure a free one doesn't mean we get to pirate an AP photographer's work. The uploader's argument that he's tried to find a free image but failed is counterintuitive. If we get to pirate an AP photographer's work because one editor can't find a free image, what's our motivation to even look? —
Rklawton 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As I noted on the talk page, I made several good faith efforts to try and secure a free image and failing that looked through the qualifications
WP:FAIRUSE and picked an image that seemed to best fulfill those categories (including making proper attribution to the source which is counterintuitive to "pirating" something). The hang up that RkLawton seems to have is over the "hypothetical assumption" that there simply must be free alternatives somewhere that someone will eventually bring to the article sometimes. In the vast majority of circumstances, I actually fall into the same camp as RkLawton when it comes to fair use. I work on a lot of wine articles and have been searching for images to use on some BLPs like
Toby Meltzer. In those cases I refuse to consider a fair use images because I know the very nature of those subjects means that a fair and rational opportunity to procure a free image exist and I feel that the onus is me (or any other editor) wanting to have an image to go out and take one if all else fails. However in the case of a decease individual the pool of potential free images is dramatically reduced. The opportunity for a wikipedia editor to grab their camera and snap a picture (or ask someone to do it for them) is eliminated and the current existing resources is very finite. This creates an inherent
systematic bias towards images for articles of living people and non-human objects at the expense of the encyclopedic quality and service of articles about deceased individuals. I certainly tried to find a free article and I will gladly accept any provided replacement but its hard to sacrifice the quality of an article based upon a vague and "hypothetical assumption" that the image is "replaceable" and that there simply must be some free image out there. In reading
WP:FAIRUSE, the "replaceable" clause seems very vague and subjective in application and I don't think it adequately addresses the limited opportunity and free use potential with deceased subjects. If the community consensus of Wikipedia is to go full tilt with the "hypothetical assumptions" of existing free use images out there then I really don't think there is any point in having
WP:FAIRUSE at all. In theory anything is replaceable because under some rock somewhere could exist a free picture just waiting to be uploaded.
AgneCheese/
Wine 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That reasoning might be good enough for a published publicity photo, but there's certainly no excuse for pirating an AP photographer's work.
Rklawton 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I have to say you are closing in the incivility line (especially with the edit summary "stealing is stealing") and I would appreciate if you took a step back from that line. One does not steal something that they are properly attributing to the source and AP photographer, in accordance to
WP:FAIRUSE. Also in accordance to
WP:FAIRUSE, I deliberately selected the poorest quality version of that photograph out the three copies that I found on purpose to ensure that there was no damage to the copyright holder's ability to use the image commercially or to allow others to make copies and truly "pirate" the image. I have made every effort to respect and attribute the work of the original photographer (including attempting to find contact information on the individual to directly ask for permission but several days of searching has not come up with anything). I would appreciate if you extend a bit of civil respect and good faith to one of your fellow editors and not so liberally accuse people of stealing or pirating.
AgneCheese/
Wine 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
"It's not stealing because I properly attributed the source and the photographer" is one of the myths of copyright. I'm not saying you did steal, I'm just saying that it isn't a valid defense against accusations of copyright infringement.
Anrie 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. Uploader states "my photo", which is not necessarilly a statement of authorship
BigDT 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I keep telling you that these images are used not just on CBS.com, but on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com may have deals with other websites (or magazines, whatever) to let them use their images under certain circumstances. The terms of use of sites like tv.yahoo.com or imdb.com, for instance, make it clear that they have deals with content providers like cbs. But for a normal person downloading one of the images from the cbs.com website, the binding deal is their terms of use document, that clearly states that those images are not promotional material. They are for personal and non-commercial use only.
Also, being "way better than any screenshot" is not a good fair use claim. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I still stand by what I said. There is no reason why these images should not be kept. They are to illustrate copyrighted characters, therefore there is NO "free" replacement. If CBS (or Yahoo, or any of the other given sites) complain, that would be a good reason to delete the image. That has not happened. Images from official sites such as CBS.com, NBC.com, ABC.com, etc, are widely used in Wikipedia articles to illustrate soap opera characters. Some examples:
Marlena Evans,
Lucas Roberts,
Lulu Spencer.
Kogsquinge 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
If you need to illustrate fiction characters from tv or movies, use screenshots. While not free, they have a sound fair use rationale. Fair use allow us to use a portion of a copyrighted work when discussing that copyrighted work itself. While a screenshot is a portion of the copyrighted movie or tv show in question, theses images are complete and independent copyrighted works. They were produced by they copyright owners to be used by them, either on their websites or on those of it's affiliates or clients. There's a whole business model based on internet by-products of tv-shows, and these images were produced to be used in this market. We can't simply use them in our website without competing with their original market role. --Abu badali(
talk) 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay, but aside from the fact that the quality of screenshots is extremely inferior to that of the CBS photos, I have not been able to FIND any screenshots that are not from sites such as CBS.com.
Kogsquinge 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I keep telling you that these images are used not just on CBS.com, but on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promotional material. Source is a fansite. Abu badali(
talk) 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
fantasysoapnet.com is not a source of promo material. They produce images to enchance their site, not ours (see "terms of use"). Abu badali(
talk) 14:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source is a fansite. Abu badali(
talk) 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence this was released as promo material. Source seems to be a Finish fansite, with unclear copyright notice or terms of use. Abu badali(
talk) 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source for promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
the-new-yr-totally-sucks.org is not a source for sony's promotional material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
tv.yahoo.com is not a source of promo material. Abu badali(
talk) 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are used on many other sites and in a lot of magazines. They illustrate the subject of the articles way better than any screenshot. They are obviously promotional. And they are clearly referenced. STRONG KEEPKogsquinge 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Is not a website screenshot (incorrectly tagged), and is copyrighted. No appropriate fair use rationale given. Uploader has been notified.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. I just removed it (and a whole bunch of other wrapper images) from
Kit Kat, where they were simply being used in a gallery, which fails points 3 and 8 of the
Wikipedia non-free content policy. This particular image claims
NoRightsReserved, but it's a candy bar wrapper, and it is very unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright to this design. —
Bkell (
talk) 17:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I took the photo myself and cropped it down, which is why I used the tag I did, but if doing so infringes the copyright of the wrapper design itself, then do please delete.
CLW 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Apparently cropped from an album cover, but not being used to illustrate the album in question. Also this is an image of a living person which merely shows what he looks like. See the eighth, and maybe the second,
example of unacceptable use. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Appears to be cropped from an album cover, therefore violating free use since it's used on the
Charlie Christian article and not on the article about the album that it was the cover of. —
Corvus cornix 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply