This image is a parody of
South Park depicting
college football coaches of the
Southeastern Conference as if they were South Park characters. While it's very well done, it's probably inappropriate on several levels. (1) Depicting Nick Saban holding bags of money has obvious BLP issues. (2) As a derivative of South Park and of several school logos, it's questionable whether this meets our licensing needs. (3) The statement in the article concerning parodies is unsourced.
B (
talk)
02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I made the image, and it has been used widely on blogs, message boards, etc. I can understand that there might be some objections to it, but parody is a protected form of expression, so I don't think there should be a legal issue with it. Nonetheless, if it is removed it will be ok with me, as I don't want it to cause any problems for wikipedia. Sources for parodies of South Park should not be hard to find, as they are widely used and available.
Cardsplayer4life (
talk)
01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader changed license and added info and removed ifd tag. Still no proof of license and sourcing doesn't add up. -
Nard21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Even assuming the licensing is correct, it has only been twenty years since 1988, not 25 as the license requires. -
Nard03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'll replace the Egyptian license with the correct Jordan license, which releases it in PD. The Jordan license says if its published before 1979 it in PD. --
Al Ameer son (
talk)
19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
OBSOLETE Original image for the article
Mudd's Women – which was better quality – was removed for no good reason and replaced by this smaller, and IMO, crappier version. I returned the original image to the article, which was fine the way it was. Please get rid of this one.
Cyberia23 (
talk)
04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
"The image is used to identify the organization Phil Hartman, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey."
Phil Hartman is not an organization, nor does this logo represent him in any way, shape, or form. The Phil Hartman article claims the subject designed this logo, albeit w/o any
reliable sources; further, that is the extent of its discussion and usage in said article: "Hartman worked part time as a graphic artist, including designing album covers for popular rock bands. [To include]
Crosby, Stills & Nash's logo." Fails
WP:RS &
WP:NFCC#1,
3a, and
8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Possessing a copy of a photograph is not the same as owning the copyright for it. The photo was taken after 1923, so is still copyrighted. Alkivar doesn't have the right to put it under cc-by-sa
Superm401 -
Talk06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationaled to "[t]o illustrate the article about the movie". Unnecessary and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding; fails
WP:NFCC#1,
3a, and
8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Quite encyclopedic if used properly, but can't really be used properly — the guy is altogether nonnotable. Plus, it appears to be a copyvio (professionally-done picture done by the uploader?).
Nyttend (
talk)
03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
While the image is tagged with a CC-by-sa 2.5 license, the description reads "..may be used or distributed freely ... as long as the purpose is non-commercial". Already contacted the uploader in June 2007 about it, but he never responded. The image has in the meantime been transferred to a few other Wikipedias as being CC-by-sa 2.5, and I noticed this catch yet again when I wanted to move it to the Commons. I can't do that in good faith, seeing as how the author clearly does not want his image to be used for commercial purposes. Should be removed as a non-free image.
Anrie (
talk)
19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I doubt the user meant by "non-commercial" the image could not be used on Wikipedia, as he chose to uploaded the image TO Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians do not consider Wikipedia to be a commercial site. For the record,
User:Bensheppard has not edited since
May 92007 (Arnie's first attempt to contact him was in July 2007), and has no specified e-mail address. -
BillCJ (
talk)
19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree the user did not mean the picture can't be used on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia certainly means that non-commercial images can't be used here. Per the
Image use policy: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight..
Anrie (
talk)
05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The image is probably a copyvio qualifies for speedy deletion - Google Images
finds that this exact image was used to illustrate a news article though since publication of that article the original image been removed. Marc Kupper (
talk) (
contribs)22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is a parody of
South Park depicting
college football coaches of the
Southeastern Conference as if they were South Park characters. While it's very well done, it's probably inappropriate on several levels. (1) Depicting Nick Saban holding bags of money has obvious BLP issues. (2) As a derivative of South Park and of several school logos, it's questionable whether this meets our licensing needs. (3) The statement in the article concerning parodies is unsourced.
B (
talk)
02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I made the image, and it has been used widely on blogs, message boards, etc. I can understand that there might be some objections to it, but parody is a protected form of expression, so I don't think there should be a legal issue with it. Nonetheless, if it is removed it will be ok with me, as I don't want it to cause any problems for wikipedia. Sources for parodies of South Park should not be hard to find, as they are widely used and available.
Cardsplayer4life (
talk)
01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader changed license and added info and removed ifd tag. Still no proof of license and sourcing doesn't add up. -
Nard21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Even assuming the licensing is correct, it has only been twenty years since 1988, not 25 as the license requires. -
Nard03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'll replace the Egyptian license with the correct Jordan license, which releases it in PD. The Jordan license says if its published before 1979 it in PD. --
Al Ameer son (
talk)
19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
OBSOLETE Original image for the article
Mudd's Women – which was better quality – was removed for no good reason and replaced by this smaller, and IMO, crappier version. I returned the original image to the article, which was fine the way it was. Please get rid of this one.
Cyberia23 (
talk)
04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
"The image is used to identify the organization Phil Hartman, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey."
Phil Hartman is not an organization, nor does this logo represent him in any way, shape, or form. The Phil Hartman article claims the subject designed this logo, albeit w/o any
reliable sources; further, that is the extent of its discussion and usage in said article: "Hartman worked part time as a graphic artist, including designing album covers for popular rock bands. [To include]
Crosby, Stills & Nash's logo." Fails
WP:RS &
WP:NFCC#1,
3a, and
8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Possessing a copy of a photograph is not the same as owning the copyright for it. The photo was taken after 1923, so is still copyrighted. Alkivar doesn't have the right to put it under cc-by-sa
Superm401 -
Talk06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationaled to "[t]o illustrate the article about the movie". Unnecessary and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding; fails
WP:NFCC#1,
3a, and
8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Quite encyclopedic if used properly, but can't really be used properly — the guy is altogether nonnotable. Plus, it appears to be a copyvio (professionally-done picture done by the uploader?).
Nyttend (
talk)
03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
While the image is tagged with a CC-by-sa 2.5 license, the description reads "..may be used or distributed freely ... as long as the purpose is non-commercial". Already contacted the uploader in June 2007 about it, but he never responded. The image has in the meantime been transferred to a few other Wikipedias as being CC-by-sa 2.5, and I noticed this catch yet again when I wanted to move it to the Commons. I can't do that in good faith, seeing as how the author clearly does not want his image to be used for commercial purposes. Should be removed as a non-free image.
Anrie (
talk)
19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I doubt the user meant by "non-commercial" the image could not be used on Wikipedia, as he chose to uploaded the image TO Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians do not consider Wikipedia to be a commercial site. For the record,
User:Bensheppard has not edited since
May 92007 (Arnie's first attempt to contact him was in July 2007), and has no specified e-mail address. -
BillCJ (
talk)
19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree the user did not mean the picture can't be used on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia certainly means that non-commercial images can't be used here. Per the
Image use policy: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight..
Anrie (
talk)
05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The image is probably a copyvio qualifies for speedy deletion - Google Images
finds that this exact image was used to illustrate a news article though since publication of that article the original image been removed. Marc Kupper (
talk) (
contribs)22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply