Should only be generally used when no free image exists; however, there are several flickr images available that would probably be willingly released to GFDL. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥slurp me! 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't a turning point in the history of the characters to justify fair-use, nor it is used for critical comentary —
Perón 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
UE, OR.
Content fork of
Image:SecularStates.png (difference being the United States color). Only reason for the upload was to make anti-George W. Bush political statement that the U.S. is not a secular state. This image has no purpose in any article. The uploader was banned for disruption some hours ago. —
Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
how is it a copyright violation ? i have a copyright tag on the picture ; besides ; it`s myself and a celebrity . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicki Bookie (
talk •
contribs) 13:35, June 1, 2007
The picture of a celebrity is a possible copyright violation. --
Geniac 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo:
Image:Santiago at night.jpg is a scan of a postcard. I have one of them. "FOTOS: ALEX HUBER" appears on the back of the postcard. I have serious doubts about his/her claims of authorship.
Jespinos 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, possible copyvio, only says "credit Action images", that seems to be the name of any number of photo agencies, none of wich seems to be in the habbit of releasing stuff to the public domain...
Sherool(talk) 16:22, 31 May 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.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Sarge Baldy(no rationale given.) --
Aarktica 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, no context to determine ensyclopedic usability, probably a personal photo.
Sherool(talk) 16:35, 31 May 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.
Unused personal photo, not otherwise usefull.
Sherool(talk) 17:27, 31 May 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.
} Delete. —
Angr 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Rationale for deletion from
User_talk:Angr#Star_Trek: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates
non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with
Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with
Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article. —
Angr 05:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
startrek.com is not a source for promotional material. The role of their images is to increase the value of their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This is really splitting hairs, here. The purpose of startrek.com IS, of course, promotional in nature, and as a free photo of this cast, in these costumes, on that set could never be created, this is a perfect example of copyrighted material, reduced in size and resolution, and fairly used. But, if this is the type of image that's no longer welcome here, so be it. I suppose Abu, you'd want to see "proof" that this photo was released to the media for use? (That it actually comes from a literal press kit, not a virtual or figurative one? Please
remember the "Ugly Betty" example from the other week, where you insisted that a promotional photo from that show could NEVER be downloaded from a website, when, in fact, it was an ABC website where Reuters had obtained the photo.) And what other purpose do you think this photo could be serving? By content, it is OBVIOUSLY promotional in nature - it's NOT a screenshot, it was OBVIOUSLY taken to promote the show. Do you believe there is a some kind of difference between "Promotional Photos Taken For Release to the Media" and "Promotional Photos Taken For Other Uses"? A promotional photo, such as this one, is a promotional photo; if you want all of them deleted, I think that's certainly a valid point of view; but to keep picking away one by one on technicalities seems a waste of everyone's time. Take it to the Village Pump, and make a proposal. But if promotional photos are allowed on Wikipedia (they are), and fair use is still allowed on Wikipedia (it is), then this photo should stay.
Jenolenspeak it! 09:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
To make a long history short, what makes images from startrek.com not-promotional is the part of their
terms of use that reads: "The copying, reproduction, rearrangement, sales, leasing, renting, distribution, redistribution, modification, downloading, exchanging, creating of derivative works, uploading, posting, transmitting, or publication by you, directly or indirectly, of the Content, including the removal or alteration of advertising, except pursuant to the express limited grant of rights hereunder, is strictly prohibited" (enphasis mine). And the "limited grant of rights" is no more than "Company grants you a limited, personal, non-exclusive, non-commercial, revocable, non-assignable and non-transferable license to download - view, use and/or play a single copy of the Content ". --Abu badali(
talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So what? This sounds scary... until you realize that legally, you are allowed to fairly use copyrighted material. And this is copyrighted material that *is* being fairly used, both according to U.S. law, and to crazy Wiki-policy standards. Abu - you understand that the fair use of copyrighted material is going to involve the USE of copyrighted material, every time, right? Paramount/CBS Interactive CANNOT legally "strictly prohibit" the FAIR USE of its copyrighted material. U.S. Law actually trumps the wishes and desires of Paramount, in this (and every) case.
Jenolenspeak it! 07:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Consider Re-reading my argument. I didn't say CBS "strictly prohibit the FAIR USE of its copyrighted material". That sentence would make no sense. I pointed the terms of use just to debunk the belief that this is promotional material (i.e., material to be used by others to promote a product).
Also, consider reading more about "fair use". We could fairly use this image in an article about the image itself, or about startrek.com, or about posed cast pictures or about tv-show's websites, etc... but when we use this image to illustrate a webpage about startrek, we're simply replacing the original market role for this copyright material. Using a screenshot (i.e., a small-piece of the whole copyrighted work being commented (the tv-series)), would be fair use.
If you still have any difficulty understanding the concept, please, let us know. --Abu badali(
talk) 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
A promotional image of Star Trek used at an article about Star Trek is exactly the kind of minimal use "fair use" has to be restricted to. This photo fits all the related rationales.
Perón 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The whole point is that this is not a "promotional image". This is an image produced to enhance the startrek.com website. They made it clear that we're not welcome to resdistribute their content. --Abu badali(
talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
That's no "point". You are just reformulating the same thing I said. It's like if I say that this isn't even an image but instead just a piece of packaged information distributed by servers in a manner that it can appear in a web browser and make a group of pixels in the screen develop certain colours that, in a whole, manage to look like a futuristic crew of a starship...
Perón 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I believe that we have fully established in
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg that one of the requirements of proper fair use is that our use be transformative -- that is, the purpose of our usage is different than the purpose that the copyright holder intends for the work to be used. This does not seem to be the case here. howcheng {
chat} 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So what kind of promotional photo, of the cast of the show, in their costumes, facing the camera, would be acceptable? One from a different source? Remember - there's no "free" alternative here. It's just really splitting hairs to say that because this promotional photo was used on StarTrek.com, it is a different type of promotional photo than any other promotional photo. What you're doing here is setting up "classes" of promotional photo, any of which can, of course, you'll likely argue can be deleted at any time for any number of perceived policy (not legal) violations. And you may be be right - maybe Wikipedia SHOULDN'T cover copyrighted material, nor show pictures of copyrighted material. But it does. And since there's never going to be a free image, of this cast, in this pose, on that set, to kill it on a "transformative" rap seems like just another pointless deletion.
Jenolenspeak it! 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Assuming that by "acceptable", you mean acceptable for illustrating an article about the contents of the picture (startrek) and not about the picture itself, it's likely that any photo of the cast of the show, in their costumes, facing the camera, that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media, would be acceptable (nothing new here). But images produced to give the official website some advantage over other websites, unfortunately, can't be fairly used. --Abu badali(
talk) 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So, you have evidence that this image was PRODUCED for the website? Or was this image simply USED by the website? Because, I'm telling you - having stood where that picture was taken - there's no point at which the photographer says, "Okay, now these ones are for the website." Which is apparently how you think it works. That's not how it works. The cast puts on the outfits, and they spend a day taking promotional images which are used far and wide; on websites, books, sheets, cup sets, action figure packaging, etc. There is no way to make you can claim that this image was PRODUCED for the website, therefore, unusuable. It is a promotional image of the cast, fairly sourced and fairly used. It's not one of 30 photos cluttering up a Trekker fan page; it's the only photo on the page to show the actors. And it is definitely a promotional photo. We know who owns the copyright; we know the source. Both are properly attributed. A valid WP:FUC rationale is being used. This should NOT be deleted.
Jenolenspeak it! 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
one of the requirements of proper fair use is that our use be transformative -- Which is not at all a requirement for other types of copyrighted images, such as logos, album covers, etc. This has not been established at all.
Jenolenspeak it! 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Is there such a thing as a "transformative" fair use anywhere to begin with? I think this is a mistake: The requirement for being transformative (wich is, you can modify the image at will and do as you want with it) is a requirement of the free images. Fair use is allowed as an exception to the rule, it does not actually follow it
Perón 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per above arguments. --
Iamunknown 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Elaborate, please. Many arguments have been given, both for deleting and keeping
Perón 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per my arguments, obviously. It occured to me there had not been a "keep" from me, so here it is. Also, please note that Abu is making the same argument - about photos from websites not being "true" promotional photos -- above that has
already debunked once. Also note that there's an entire orthodoxy of promotional photos -- widely released to the media through a variety of sources -- that is currently being discussed for removal from Wikipedia. But in this case, since there can NEVER be a free alternative, we KNOW the source, we KNOW the copyright holder... it seems like to delete this cast photo in favor of... what, another cast photo from an unknown source? A poorly lit, poorly framed convention photo? .... seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. Either we want to cover copyrighted material - in which case this image should stay -- or we want to prohibit the fair use of this type of copyrighted material. The rules, for now, allow this images use.
Jenolenspeak it! 03:12, 13 June 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.
Freedom of Panorama in France, where this building is, allows copyright to be retained by architechs of unique buildings including images and postcards, see
commons:COM:FOP#France for the France FOP information
MECU≈
talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Are, then, our numerous photos of the
Eiffel Tower to be deleted, too? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not the daytime shots. The nighttime shots, which include the 2003 lighting design by SNTE, are subject to copyright protection. howcheng {
chat} 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete. Fake movie poster created with the intention of vandalizing
Righteous Kill. —
CyberGhostface 20:31, 31 May 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.
Delete, unused anyway. —
Angr 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This image appears to be a fake. Notice the "halo" around the head indicating a bad cut-n-paste job. howcheng {
chat} 20:35, 31 May 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.
Should only be generally used when no free image exists; however, there are several flickr images available that would probably be willingly released to GFDL. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥slurp me! 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Low quality (blurry, grainy). The article
Utah State Prison could use some images but this is kind of an embarrassment. howcheng {
chat} 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't a turning point in the history of the characters to justify fair-use, nor it is used for critical comentary —
Perón 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
UE, OR.
Content fork of
Image:SecularStates.png (difference being the United States color). Only reason for the upload was to make anti-George W. Bush political statement that the U.S. is not a secular state. This image has no purpose in any article. The uploader was banned for disruption some hours ago. —
Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
how is it a copyright violation ? i have a copyright tag on the picture ; besides ; it`s myself and a celebrity . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicki Bookie (
talk •
contribs) 13:35, June 1, 2007
The picture of a celebrity is a possible copyright violation. --
Geniac 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo:
Image:Santiago at night.jpg is a scan of a postcard. I have one of them. "FOTOS: ALEX HUBER" appears on the back of the postcard. I have serious doubts about his/her claims of authorship.
Jespinos 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, possible copyvio, only says "credit Action images", that seems to be the name of any number of photo agencies, none of wich seems to be in the habbit of releasing stuff to the public domain...
Sherool(talk) 16:22, 31 May 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.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Sarge Baldy(no rationale given.) --
Aarktica 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, no context to determine ensyclopedic usability, probably a personal photo.
Sherool(talk) 16:35, 31 May 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.
Unused personal photo, not otherwise usefull.
Sherool(talk) 17:27, 31 May 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.
} Delete. —
Angr 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Rationale for deletion from
User_talk:Angr#Star_Trek: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates
non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with
Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with
Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article. —
Angr 05:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
startrek.com is not a source for promotional material. The role of their images is to increase the value of their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This is really splitting hairs, here. The purpose of startrek.com IS, of course, promotional in nature, and as a free photo of this cast, in these costumes, on that set could never be created, this is a perfect example of copyrighted material, reduced in size and resolution, and fairly used. But, if this is the type of image that's no longer welcome here, so be it. I suppose Abu, you'd want to see "proof" that this photo was released to the media for use? (That it actually comes from a literal press kit, not a virtual or figurative one? Please
remember the "Ugly Betty" example from the other week, where you insisted that a promotional photo from that show could NEVER be downloaded from a website, when, in fact, it was an ABC website where Reuters had obtained the photo.) And what other purpose do you think this photo could be serving? By content, it is OBVIOUSLY promotional in nature - it's NOT a screenshot, it was OBVIOUSLY taken to promote the show. Do you believe there is a some kind of difference between "Promotional Photos Taken For Release to the Media" and "Promotional Photos Taken For Other Uses"? A promotional photo, such as this one, is a promotional photo; if you want all of them deleted, I think that's certainly a valid point of view; but to keep picking away one by one on technicalities seems a waste of everyone's time. Take it to the Village Pump, and make a proposal. But if promotional photos are allowed on Wikipedia (they are), and fair use is still allowed on Wikipedia (it is), then this photo should stay.
Jenolenspeak it! 09:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
To make a long history short, what makes images from startrek.com not-promotional is the part of their
terms of use that reads: "The copying, reproduction, rearrangement, sales, leasing, renting, distribution, redistribution, modification, downloading, exchanging, creating of derivative works, uploading, posting, transmitting, or publication by you, directly or indirectly, of the Content, including the removal or alteration of advertising, except pursuant to the express limited grant of rights hereunder, is strictly prohibited" (enphasis mine). And the "limited grant of rights" is no more than "Company grants you a limited, personal, non-exclusive, non-commercial, revocable, non-assignable and non-transferable license to download - view, use and/or play a single copy of the Content ". --Abu badali(
talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So what? This sounds scary... until you realize that legally, you are allowed to fairly use copyrighted material. And this is copyrighted material that *is* being fairly used, both according to U.S. law, and to crazy Wiki-policy standards. Abu - you understand that the fair use of copyrighted material is going to involve the USE of copyrighted material, every time, right? Paramount/CBS Interactive CANNOT legally "strictly prohibit" the FAIR USE of its copyrighted material. U.S. Law actually trumps the wishes and desires of Paramount, in this (and every) case.
Jenolenspeak it! 07:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Consider Re-reading my argument. I didn't say CBS "strictly prohibit the FAIR USE of its copyrighted material". That sentence would make no sense. I pointed the terms of use just to debunk the belief that this is promotional material (i.e., material to be used by others to promote a product).
Also, consider reading more about "fair use". We could fairly use this image in an article about the image itself, or about startrek.com, or about posed cast pictures or about tv-show's websites, etc... but when we use this image to illustrate a webpage about startrek, we're simply replacing the original market role for this copyright material. Using a screenshot (i.e., a small-piece of the whole copyrighted work being commented (the tv-series)), would be fair use.
If you still have any difficulty understanding the concept, please, let us know. --Abu badali(
talk) 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
A promotional image of Star Trek used at an article about Star Trek is exactly the kind of minimal use "fair use" has to be restricted to. This photo fits all the related rationales.
Perón 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The whole point is that this is not a "promotional image". This is an image produced to enhance the startrek.com website. They made it clear that we're not welcome to resdistribute their content. --Abu badali(
talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
That's no "point". You are just reformulating the same thing I said. It's like if I say that this isn't even an image but instead just a piece of packaged information distributed by servers in a manner that it can appear in a web browser and make a group of pixels in the screen develop certain colours that, in a whole, manage to look like a futuristic crew of a starship...
Perón 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. I believe that we have fully established in
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg that one of the requirements of proper fair use is that our use be transformative -- that is, the purpose of our usage is different than the purpose that the copyright holder intends for the work to be used. This does not seem to be the case here. howcheng {
chat} 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So what kind of promotional photo, of the cast of the show, in their costumes, facing the camera, would be acceptable? One from a different source? Remember - there's no "free" alternative here. It's just really splitting hairs to say that because this promotional photo was used on StarTrek.com, it is a different type of promotional photo than any other promotional photo. What you're doing here is setting up "classes" of promotional photo, any of which can, of course, you'll likely argue can be deleted at any time for any number of perceived policy (not legal) violations. And you may be be right - maybe Wikipedia SHOULDN'T cover copyrighted material, nor show pictures of copyrighted material. But it does. And since there's never going to be a free image, of this cast, in this pose, on that set, to kill it on a "transformative" rap seems like just another pointless deletion.
Jenolenspeak it! 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Assuming that by "acceptable", you mean acceptable for illustrating an article about the contents of the picture (startrek) and not about the picture itself, it's likely that any photo of the cast of the show, in their costumes, facing the camera, that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media, would be acceptable (nothing new here). But images produced to give the official website some advantage over other websites, unfortunately, can't be fairly used. --Abu badali(
talk) 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
So, you have evidence that this image was PRODUCED for the website? Or was this image simply USED by the website? Because, I'm telling you - having stood where that picture was taken - there's no point at which the photographer says, "Okay, now these ones are for the website." Which is apparently how you think it works. That's not how it works. The cast puts on the outfits, and they spend a day taking promotional images which are used far and wide; on websites, books, sheets, cup sets, action figure packaging, etc. There is no way to make you can claim that this image was PRODUCED for the website, therefore, unusuable. It is a promotional image of the cast, fairly sourced and fairly used. It's not one of 30 photos cluttering up a Trekker fan page; it's the only photo on the page to show the actors. And it is definitely a promotional photo. We know who owns the copyright; we know the source. Both are properly attributed. A valid WP:FUC rationale is being used. This should NOT be deleted.
Jenolenspeak it! 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
one of the requirements of proper fair use is that our use be transformative -- Which is not at all a requirement for other types of copyrighted images, such as logos, album covers, etc. This has not been established at all.
Jenolenspeak it! 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Is there such a thing as a "transformative" fair use anywhere to begin with? I think this is a mistake: The requirement for being transformative (wich is, you can modify the image at will and do as you want with it) is a requirement of the free images. Fair use is allowed as an exception to the rule, it does not actually follow it
Perón 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per above arguments. --
Iamunknown 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Elaborate, please. Many arguments have been given, both for deleting and keeping
Perón 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per my arguments, obviously. It occured to me there had not been a "keep" from me, so here it is. Also, please note that Abu is making the same argument - about photos from websites not being "true" promotional photos -- above that has
already debunked once. Also note that there's an entire orthodoxy of promotional photos -- widely released to the media through a variety of sources -- that is currently being discussed for removal from Wikipedia. But in this case, since there can NEVER be a free alternative, we KNOW the source, we KNOW the copyright holder... it seems like to delete this cast photo in favor of... what, another cast photo from an unknown source? A poorly lit, poorly framed convention photo? .... seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. Either we want to cover copyrighted material - in which case this image should stay -- or we want to prohibit the fair use of this type of copyrighted material. The rules, for now, allow this images use.
Jenolenspeak it! 03:12, 13 June 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.
Freedom of Panorama in France, where this building is, allows copyright to be retained by architechs of unique buildings including images and postcards, see
commons:COM:FOP#France for the France FOP information
MECU≈
talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Are, then, our numerous photos of the
Eiffel Tower to be deleted, too? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not the daytime shots. The nighttime shots, which include the 2003 lighting design by SNTE, are subject to copyright protection. howcheng {
chat} 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete. Fake movie poster created with the intention of vandalizing
Righteous Kill. —
CyberGhostface 20:31, 31 May 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.
Delete, unused anyway. —
Angr 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This image appears to be a fake. Notice the "halo" around the head indicating a bad cut-n-paste job. howcheng {
chat} 20:35, 31 May 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.