Orphaned image, uploader is blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Also possible copyright violation: uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming them to be his own work, and this image looks very good and is probably a professional photo.
Uncia (
talk)
02:59, 31 August 2008 (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.
Non-free screenshot of the opening screen of a news show, used in the article on a TV station. Purely decorative, fails NFCC#8. The visual design of this particular news show is not discussed in the article and therefore not in need of illustration. It doesn't seem to be in any way remarkable either. See parallel nomination of
Image:National_Nine_News_Darwin.png, which was an alternative for the same purpose.
Fut.Perf.☼08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The opener is not used by the Nine network in other stations that it owns and is unique to
NTD. It's not used as decorative look. The Admin's actions have been questioned for being anti fair-use.
Bidgee (
talk)
09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Purely decorative" is in the eye of the beholder, and I fail to see how the nominator's personal opinion on that point is relevant. This looks like a valid fair-use picture to me. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
23:42, 12 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
This is listed as a "joke". I'm sorry, to that I say: "What's the joke?" I don't think this sort of image is worthy of an encyclopedia. Maybe if someone can explain to me the funny part, I would change my mind. --
Yekrats (
talk)
10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
KEEP This forum is to discuss licenses, not content. This image is used on a Talkpage, much as images of sayings etc are featured on user talkpages, with such usages quite plainly allowed on WP.
Justmeherenow( )20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm assuming the underlying picture is free, but if the subject of the picture asked for it to be taken down, then per
personality rights I think we would have to do so. It's unlikely, but should we really be keeping such pictures even if we think they are harmless?
Carcharoth (
talk)
04:05, 1 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the debate was:
Kept. It is a meritous argument that this image depicts a defunct band, not four seperate individuals. With the band effectively "dead", the dead person principle applies, albeit imperfectly. Amatulic's argument is without merit.
WilyD13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. This might be an arguable case if the visual presentation of their line-up contained some more original, unique elements that really told us something about the band and its style. But as it is, it's just some guys in everyday apparel standing around, and the only piece of information we get from it is essentially that of a set of individual portraits. Replaceable with a sentence of text that names them, combined with free images of each.
Fut.Perf.☼07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Only replaceable if it is free images of each at the time they were in the band, not free images of them at some later point. And there is still the point that there is an entity ("the band") that is separate from them as individuals. I'm trying to think of other examples of "group" entities where pictures of the individual elements are not a sufficient replacement for a picture of the group as a whole (though, as you say, a text description replacement may well be enough). I'm well aware that this will probably get deleted under NFCC#8 or the text clause of NFCC#1, but I want people to move away from misinterpreting NFCC#1 for group entites. Groups and buildings "live" and "die" just as much as individuals do. When a building is demolished, or a band breaks up, there are legitimate arguments to be made that the "entity" no longer exists and it is no longer possible to go and get a "free" picture of the group any more. Having said that, in the case of existing bands, a free image of the existing band is probably enough. We should also encourage linking to external sites that host images. Not to the picture itself (I think that is called hotlinking or deeplinking or something) but to a website on the history of the band, showing a picture of what the band looked like.
Carcharoth (
talk)
08:57, 6 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the debate was:
Kept. As above, image depicts a defunct band, not a collection of living individuals. Context and use is important in evaluating nonfree image use.
WilyD13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded (in this case, it is an earlier make-up of the band). Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the discussion was: keep. Per the precedent set in the above two discussions that an image of a group (in an article about that group) is not replaceable by individual images of the group members. -
Nv8200ptalk16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band's former line-up as a whole once a member has left. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but that "line-up" of the band is effectively "dead" unless the former member rejoins. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual (this image should not be used in
Derek Sherinian), but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band when
Derek Sherinian was a member, somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative if we want to illustrate what the previous line-ups of the bands were. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The article already has
this and
this as group free images. All the one being discussed here shows is that
Derek Sherinian was really part of the band - unless the 1995 hairstyles are peculiarly notable this can be easily conveyed with text. -
Peripitus(Talk)21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
It would be nice to link to an external site that has this picture though. Can we do that? One of the things about long-running bands is the change in appearance and composition over the years. While pictures are not technically necessary to describe that, it is one of the best ways of doing so. BTW,
Image:DT1988.jpg seems to have been missed. Has anyone written to the copyright holders to see if they will release the images under a free license?
Carcharoth (
talk)
04:11, 1 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned image; uploader is blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet; possible copyright violation because images are only 640x480 pixels and have no metadata and so are unlikely to be uploader's original photos; uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming they are his own work.
Uncia (
talk)
15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image; uploader is blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet; possible copyright violation because images are only 640x480 pixels and have no metadata and so are unlikely to be uploader's original photos; uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming they are his own work.
Uncia (
talk)
15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, not 100% sure since it just users initials, but I think this migh be related to
Maria Innocentia Hummel, according to that article she died in 1946, meaning it won't lapse into public domain untill 2016 (at least not in the US)...
Sherool(talk)15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, very vague source info only says it's from "an architecture firm". Aparenlty tagged as public doman since it was publicly released, wich is generaly not the case.
Sherool(talk)18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, uploader asserts that ths is something (s)he created him/herself, but if you zoom in it's faily obvious that it's scanned from a printed source, it's also (badly) photoshopped (look at her lower arm on the right side).
Sherool(talk)19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I believe this fails the following criteria from the guidelines on the use of non free content as I see no reason a free alternative could not be created.
"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. .."
Anonymous101 (
talk)
19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the current image may not be the same non-free image the tagging on the page applies to, but that just mean it's unsourced and untagged. Unless source information can be purt forth to prove that this is free content it still needs to be delted, either for the reasons listed by the nominator, or for simply beeing unsourced and unverifiable. --
Sherool(talk)16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
It's a Free Content , Released And Approved By The Personnel and The Government " since He's a Political Figure " And Considered as His Official Portrait in The Media ,Press , No Official Owner Of The Picture , What i Mean is No Copyrights Nation Wide --
In Allah We Trust (
talk)
02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable Pd claim -- appears to be image cut from some other source given partial text at bottom left
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The image page is basially a biographical article written about the image subject. There are several nobility claims made, but I do not believe the subject would pass
WP:BIO. The uploaders only contributions are to this image article page and it is very likely the subject and user are the same person. The image is not used anywhere. The text could be userfied, but that would likely fail at an MfD. Not quite sure how to proceed here - speedy, prod, Ifd???
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page and copying the text to his user space.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary orphaned (not to mention a horrible) picture of a crossover by an absent uploader. What is on
Railroad switch will suffice.
« ₣M₣ » 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned image, uploader is blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Also possible copyright violation: uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming them to be his own work, and this image looks very good and is probably a professional photo.
Uncia (
talk)
02:59, 31 August 2008 (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.
Non-free screenshot of the opening screen of a news show, used in the article on a TV station. Purely decorative, fails NFCC#8. The visual design of this particular news show is not discussed in the article and therefore not in need of illustration. It doesn't seem to be in any way remarkable either. See parallel nomination of
Image:National_Nine_News_Darwin.png, which was an alternative for the same purpose.
Fut.Perf.☼08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The opener is not used by the Nine network in other stations that it owns and is unique to
NTD. It's not used as decorative look. The Admin's actions have been questioned for being anti fair-use.
Bidgee (
talk)
09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Purely decorative" is in the eye of the beholder, and I fail to see how the nominator's personal opinion on that point is relevant. This looks like a valid fair-use picture to me. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
23:42, 12 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
This is listed as a "joke". I'm sorry, to that I say: "What's the joke?" I don't think this sort of image is worthy of an encyclopedia. Maybe if someone can explain to me the funny part, I would change my mind. --
Yekrats (
talk)
10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
KEEP This forum is to discuss licenses, not content. This image is used on a Talkpage, much as images of sayings etc are featured on user talkpages, with such usages quite plainly allowed on WP.
Justmeherenow( )20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm assuming the underlying picture is free, but if the subject of the picture asked for it to be taken down, then per
personality rights I think we would have to do so. It's unlikely, but should we really be keeping such pictures even if we think they are harmless?
Carcharoth (
talk)
04:05, 1 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the debate was:
Kept. It is a meritous argument that this image depicts a defunct band, not four seperate individuals. With the band effectively "dead", the dead person principle applies, albeit imperfectly. Amatulic's argument is without merit.
WilyD13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. This might be an arguable case if the visual presentation of their line-up contained some more original, unique elements that really told us something about the band and its style. But as it is, it's just some guys in everyday apparel standing around, and the only piece of information we get from it is essentially that of a set of individual portraits. Replaceable with a sentence of text that names them, combined with free images of each.
Fut.Perf.☼07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Only replaceable if it is free images of each at the time they were in the band, not free images of them at some later point. And there is still the point that there is an entity ("the band") that is separate from them as individuals. I'm trying to think of other examples of "group" entities where pictures of the individual elements are not a sufficient replacement for a picture of the group as a whole (though, as you say, a text description replacement may well be enough). I'm well aware that this will probably get deleted under NFCC#8 or the text clause of NFCC#1, but I want people to move away from misinterpreting NFCC#1 for group entites. Groups and buildings "live" and "die" just as much as individuals do. When a building is demolished, or a band breaks up, there are legitimate arguments to be made that the "entity" no longer exists and it is no longer possible to go and get a "free" picture of the group any more. Having said that, in the case of existing bands, a free image of the existing band is probably enough. We should also encourage linking to external sites that host images. Not to the picture itself (I think that is called hotlinking or deeplinking or something) but to a website on the history of the band, showing a picture of what the band looked like.
Carcharoth (
talk)
08:57, 6 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the debate was:
Kept. As above, image depicts a defunct band, not a collection of living individuals. Context and use is important in evaluating nonfree image use.
WilyD13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded (in this case, it is an earlier make-up of the band). Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 result of the discussion was: keep. Per the precedent set in the above two discussions that an image of a group (in an article about that group) is not replaceable by individual images of the group members. -
Nv8200ptalk16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band's former line-up as a whole once a member has left. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but that "line-up" of the band is effectively "dead" unless the former member rejoins. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual (this image should not be used in
Derek Sherinian), but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band when
Derek Sherinian was a member, somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative if we want to illustrate what the previous line-ups of the bands were. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list.
Carcharoth (
talk)
19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The article already has
this and
this as group free images. All the one being discussed here shows is that
Derek Sherinian was really part of the band - unless the 1995 hairstyles are peculiarly notable this can be easily conveyed with text. -
Peripitus(Talk)21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
It would be nice to link to an external site that has this picture though. Can we do that? One of the things about long-running bands is the change in appearance and composition over the years. While pictures are not technically necessary to describe that, it is one of the best ways of doing so. BTW,
Image:DT1988.jpg seems to have been missed. Has anyone written to the copyright holders to see if they will release the images under a free license?
Carcharoth (
talk)
04:11, 1 September 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned image; uploader is blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet; possible copyright violation because images are only 640x480 pixels and have no metadata and so are unlikely to be uploader's original photos; uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming they are his own work.
Uncia (
talk)
15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image; uploader is blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet; possible copyright violation because images are only 640x480 pixels and have no metadata and so are unlikely to be uploader's original photos; uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming they are his own work.
Uncia (
talk)
15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, not 100% sure since it just users initials, but I think this migh be related to
Maria Innocentia Hummel, according to that article she died in 1946, meaning it won't lapse into public domain untill 2016 (at least not in the US)...
Sherool(talk)15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, very vague source info only says it's from "an architecture firm". Aparenlty tagged as public doman since it was publicly released, wich is generaly not the case.
Sherool(talk)18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, uploader asserts that ths is something (s)he created him/herself, but if you zoom in it's faily obvious that it's scanned from a printed source, it's also (badly) photoshopped (look at her lower arm on the right side).
Sherool(talk)19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I believe this fails the following criteria from the guidelines on the use of non free content as I see no reason a free alternative could not be created.
"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. .."
Anonymous101 (
talk)
19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the current image may not be the same non-free image the tagging on the page applies to, but that just mean it's unsourced and untagged. Unless source information can be purt forth to prove that this is free content it still needs to be delted, either for the reasons listed by the nominator, or for simply beeing unsourced and unverifiable. --
Sherool(talk)16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
It's a Free Content , Released And Approved By The Personnel and The Government " since He's a Political Figure " And Considered as His Official Portrait in The Media ,Press , No Official Owner Of The Picture , What i Mean is No Copyrights Nation Wide --
In Allah We Trust (
talk)
02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable Pd claim -- appears to be image cut from some other source given partial text at bottom left
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The image page is basially a biographical article written about the image subject. There are several nobility claims made, but I do not believe the subject would pass
WP:BIO. The uploaders only contributions are to this image article page and it is very likely the subject and user are the same person. The image is not used anywhere. The text could be userfied, but that would likely fail at an MfD. Not quite sure how to proceed here - speedy, prod, Ifd???
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page and copying the text to his user space.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Another image article page... I also believe this to be a non-notable subject and the image is not in use anywhere else. The user's contibutions only deal with this image page.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary orphaned (not to mention a horrible) picture of a crossover by an absent uploader. What is on
Railroad switch will suffice.
« ₣M₣ » 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)