orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure if the all right released is correct license given the inclusion of the Starbucks logo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic photo - likely used on a deleted band page
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, incorrectly licensed as PD when uploader stated "free to use by non-profit organizations for educations purposes"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, very low qualitty
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The licensing arrangement, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)" is, unfortunately, not free and, unless the arrangement is modified, this image should be deleted.
Iamunknown 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The licensing arrangement, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)" is, unfortunately, not free and, unless the arrangement is modified, this image should be deleted.
Iamunknown 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Per
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Eurocoins and the recent board decision that licenses which are deemed as unfree by commons aren't allowed on the different wikipedias (with the exception of fair use and these pics are obviously replaceable fair use). All were found using
this link search.
Yonatantalk 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
These really need to be tagged and the uploaders notified first before any action can be taken. --
Iamunknown 12:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
That's easier said than done, these where uploaded around July 2002, but we don't have any records over image uploads going back further than
Wikipedia:Upload log archive/November and late October 2002. When the was some fairly massive change in the backend software and database. These images are simply atributed to "(Automated conversion)" wich is just a placeholder, not a user acount or bot. --
Sherool(talk) 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah, silly me (I didn't even look :-(). Then delete away! --
Iamunknown 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah. Can't find the original uploaders so we'll just delete all the coin pictures. WHAT THE HELL FOR????? Surely we should be improving this encyclopedia instead of destroying it. Frankly, the wholesale deletion of thousands of pictures is ripping the heart out of what was a valuable resource. It is the policy that is wrong, not the use of the images. This is getting insane... leaving thousands of articles with missing pictures making a mockery of the content. Don't believe me? then take a look at the
1 euro coins article.
Astronaut 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with
Astronaut - it looks like all these images were deleted with no attempt being made to notify the talk pages of the articles where they were used, where someone could have written fair use rationales, causing massive damage to many prominent articles. Process wonkery is getting completely out of hand. I remind the deleters that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not vandalise articles without prior notification, and their activities are not assisting our ultimate objective. --
Arwel (
talk) 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, I'm not a vandal. Secondly, all of these were supposedly free, however they weren't actually. You can't "add a fair use rationale" for them as free alternatives could easily be reproduced, thereby making them replaceable fair use.
Yonatantalk 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
How come the images weren't free? In the case of images of Euro coins and notes, I'm pretty sure the free use of such images was permitted, so long as it was not possible to make counterfeit currency from the images. I will try to find a source, but failing that I will try to seek permission for their use on Wikipedia direct from the European Central Bank. I really would rather not scan my coin collection to just to reproduce images that are freely available for download from the ECB [
[1]].
Astronaut 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
All this
copyrightparanoia¹ — leading to pseudovandalism of many, many articles — on Wikipedia is really getting very irritating. I've posted a note at
Talk:Euro#Euro coin images asking for Free (or
fair use) images to be uploaded. If I get a chance over the weekend, I'll look at the
ECB site and check the copyright status of images; if they're free or available as fair use, I'll do a big batch of uploading.
But seriously, guys, we really need to get over this copyright paranoia. We're making an encyclopædia here. Some images simply aren't available as Free (
libre) images and removing all the images "because they might not be fair use" (or, worse, because they are) makes a mockery of the idea that this site is a good, worthwhile encyclopædia. I know your intentions are good but really, it is resulting in something that can only be described as vandalism, depleting the value of Wikipedia as a resource.
I'm in full agreement with
Arwel and frankly, if
Yonatan thinks "free alternatives [can] easily be reproduced", I'd invite him to reproduce those images himself. It's all well and good going on a crusade to remove all the non-Free images on Wikipedia, but it'd be nice if those same people would make at least some attempt to replace all the images they're removing.
The subject of Euro coins has come up again, this time on the
Help Desk. Seems like there might be a solution: Upload to Wikimedia Commons and ensure the template {{Money-EU}} is attached. Of course be sure to also add an {{Information|...}} template to identify the source of the image.
Astronaut 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Awesome. I'll try to get a chance to sort that out over the next week or so, then. Thanks for the heads up,
Astronaut —
OwenBlacker 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for nearly three weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —-
bainer (
talk) 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If this has to be deleted, so does pretty much every other football club badge. Seeing as it is a company logo, and is being used to illustrate the company, I believe it fits the fair use policy.
Dan Kerins 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promotional material. The images they use are produced to enhance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the CBS images should be deleted. A lot of Wikipedia images come from sites such as CBS. These images are better than screenshots because they better illustrate the characters' personality, etc. Plus, many of the CBS images appear on various other sites as well. As long as they are clearly sourced and there is a fair use rationale and copyright information, there is no reason why they cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Kogsquinge 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. We are not discussing that photograph - we can't claim fair use of it on an article about a character in the B and B. Per Abu - CBS terms of use do not release it as promotional.
Megapixie 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
DO NOT DELETE As I said before, the CBS images are commonly used on other websites. There is no reason why they should not stay on Wikipedia. If the images are deleted, I will just re-upload them.
Kogsquinge 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promotional material. These images are produced to enhance their site, our use replaces the original market role for these images Abu badali(
talk) 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the CBS images should be deleted. A lot of Wikipedia images come from sites such as CBS. These images are better than screenshots because they better illustrate the characters' personality, etc. Plus, many of the CBS images appear on various other sites as well. As long as they are clearly sourced and there is a fair use rationale and copyright information, there is no reason why they cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Kogsquinge 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not fair use. We are not discussing the photograph in question - we are discussing a character from Y+R. CBS is not releasing the material as promotional. We are not discussing the image in question. A screenshot from the episode, or a free photograph of the actress would suffice.
Megapixie 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
DO NOT DELETE As I said before, the CBS images are commonly used on other websites. There is no reason why they should not stay on Wikipedia. If the images are deleted, I will just re-upload them.
Kogsquinge 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary unfree screenshot of a tv-interview showing a man's face. Doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The image is still valuable to the article, Not unnecessary.The person is the president of Acu-Gen Biolab.And his activity's been discussed in
Baby Gender Mentor#Warranty and availability with references.--
NAHID 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - the image adds to the article in that it illustrates not just the president, but his appearance on TV to defend his product, which has come under criticism. It is the only such interview of its kind known so no free alternative will be possible. It has a detailed fair use rationale on the Image page. The image is a low-resolution, single-frame image that does not in any way interfere with the rights of the copyright holder. It is used in only one article, which made
Featured Article status with this picture in place.
Johntex\talk 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NFCC #8 -- the use of this image does not increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. It serves only a decorative purpose. howcheng {
chat} 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free images from Flags.net, it has been here for nearly two years and doesn't need to be here longer; if a digital reproduction of this particular standard is necessary a Wikipedian may feel free to create it.
Iamunknown 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, copyright probably actually still held by Disney
BigrTex 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Was used on the Hidden Mickey 50th page. I created the image, cropped from a photograph that I took. Disney holds no copyright.
Bytebear 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure if the all right released is correct license given the inclusion of the Starbucks logo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic photo - likely used on a deleted band page
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, incorrectly licensed as PD when uploader stated "free to use by non-profit organizations for educations purposes"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, very low qualitty
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The licensing arrangement, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)" is, unfortunately, not free and, unless the arrangement is modified, this image should be deleted.
Iamunknown 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The licensing arrangement, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)" is, unfortunately, not free and, unless the arrangement is modified, this image should be deleted.
Iamunknown 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Per
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Eurocoins and the recent board decision that licenses which are deemed as unfree by commons aren't allowed on the different wikipedias (with the exception of fair use and these pics are obviously replaceable fair use). All were found using
this link search.
Yonatantalk 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
These really need to be tagged and the uploaders notified first before any action can be taken. --
Iamunknown 12:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
That's easier said than done, these where uploaded around July 2002, but we don't have any records over image uploads going back further than
Wikipedia:Upload log archive/November and late October 2002. When the was some fairly massive change in the backend software and database. These images are simply atributed to "(Automated conversion)" wich is just a placeholder, not a user acount or bot. --
Sherool(talk) 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah, silly me (I didn't even look :-(). Then delete away! --
Iamunknown 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah. Can't find the original uploaders so we'll just delete all the coin pictures. WHAT THE HELL FOR????? Surely we should be improving this encyclopedia instead of destroying it. Frankly, the wholesale deletion of thousands of pictures is ripping the heart out of what was a valuable resource. It is the policy that is wrong, not the use of the images. This is getting insane... leaving thousands of articles with missing pictures making a mockery of the content. Don't believe me? then take a look at the
1 euro coins article.
Astronaut 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with
Astronaut - it looks like all these images were deleted with no attempt being made to notify the talk pages of the articles where they were used, where someone could have written fair use rationales, causing massive damage to many prominent articles. Process wonkery is getting completely out of hand. I remind the deleters that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not vandalise articles without prior notification, and their activities are not assisting our ultimate objective. --
Arwel (
talk) 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, I'm not a vandal. Secondly, all of these were supposedly free, however they weren't actually. You can't "add a fair use rationale" for them as free alternatives could easily be reproduced, thereby making them replaceable fair use.
Yonatantalk 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
How come the images weren't free? In the case of images of Euro coins and notes, I'm pretty sure the free use of such images was permitted, so long as it was not possible to make counterfeit currency from the images. I will try to find a source, but failing that I will try to seek permission for their use on Wikipedia direct from the European Central Bank. I really would rather not scan my coin collection to just to reproduce images that are freely available for download from the ECB [
[1]].
Astronaut 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
All this
copyrightparanoia¹ — leading to pseudovandalism of many, many articles — on Wikipedia is really getting very irritating. I've posted a note at
Talk:Euro#Euro coin images asking for Free (or
fair use) images to be uploaded. If I get a chance over the weekend, I'll look at the
ECB site and check the copyright status of images; if they're free or available as fair use, I'll do a big batch of uploading.
But seriously, guys, we really need to get over this copyright paranoia. We're making an encyclopædia here. Some images simply aren't available as Free (
libre) images and removing all the images "because they might not be fair use" (or, worse, because they are) makes a mockery of the idea that this site is a good, worthwhile encyclopædia. I know your intentions are good but really, it is resulting in something that can only be described as vandalism, depleting the value of Wikipedia as a resource.
I'm in full agreement with
Arwel and frankly, if
Yonatan thinks "free alternatives [can] easily be reproduced", I'd invite him to reproduce those images himself. It's all well and good going on a crusade to remove all the non-Free images on Wikipedia, but it'd be nice if those same people would make at least some attempt to replace all the images they're removing.
The subject of Euro coins has come up again, this time on the
Help Desk. Seems like there might be a solution: Upload to Wikimedia Commons and ensure the template {{Money-EU}} is attached. Of course be sure to also add an {{Information|...}} template to identify the source of the image.
Astronaut 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Awesome. I'll try to get a chance to sort that out over the next week or so, then. Thanks for the heads up,
Astronaut —
OwenBlacker 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for nearly three weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —-
bainer (
talk) 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If this has to be deleted, so does pretty much every other football club badge. Seeing as it is a company logo, and is being used to illustrate the company, I believe it fits the fair use policy.
Dan Kerins 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for more than two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfree image, no fair use rationale. Tagged for two weeks with no rationale added. Not speedyable since it was uploaded after
4 May 2006. —
bainer (
talk) 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promotional material. The images they use are produced to enhance their site, not ours. Abu badali(
talk) 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the CBS images should be deleted. A lot of Wikipedia images come from sites such as CBS. These images are better than screenshots because they better illustrate the characters' personality, etc. Plus, many of the CBS images appear on various other sites as well. As long as they are clearly sourced and there is a fair use rationale and copyright information, there is no reason why they cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Kogsquinge 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. We are not discussing that photograph - we can't claim fair use of it on an article about a character in the B and B. Per Abu - CBS terms of use do not release it as promotional.
Megapixie 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
DO NOT DELETE As I said before, the CBS images are commonly used on other websites. There is no reason why they should not stay on Wikipedia. If the images are deleted, I will just re-upload them.
Kogsquinge 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promotional material. These images are produced to enhance their site, our use replaces the original market role for these images Abu badali(
talk) 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the CBS images should be deleted. A lot of Wikipedia images come from sites such as CBS. These images are better than screenshots because they better illustrate the characters' personality, etc. Plus, many of the CBS images appear on various other sites as well. As long as they are clearly sourced and there is a fair use rationale and copyright information, there is no reason why they cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Kogsquinge 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not fair use. We are not discussing the photograph in question - we are discussing a character from Y+R. CBS is not releasing the material as promotional. We are not discussing the image in question. A screenshot from the episode, or a free photograph of the actress would suffice.
Megapixie 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
DO NOT DELETE As I said before, the CBS images are commonly used on other websites. There is no reason why they should not stay on Wikipedia. If the images are deleted, I will just re-upload them.
Kogsquinge 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary unfree screenshot of a tv-interview showing a man's face. Doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The image is still valuable to the article, Not unnecessary.The person is the president of Acu-Gen Biolab.And his activity's been discussed in
Baby Gender Mentor#Warranty and availability with references.--
NAHID 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - the image adds to the article in that it illustrates not just the president, but his appearance on TV to defend his product, which has come under criticism. It is the only such interview of its kind known so no free alternative will be possible. It has a detailed fair use rationale on the Image page. The image is a low-resolution, single-frame image that does not in any way interfere with the rights of the copyright holder. It is used in only one article, which made
Featured Article status with this picture in place.
Johntex\talk 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NFCC #8 -- the use of this image does not increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. It serves only a decorative purpose. howcheng {
chat} 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free images from Flags.net, it has been here for nearly two years and doesn't need to be here longer; if a digital reproduction of this particular standard is necessary a Wikipedian may feel free to create it.
Iamunknown 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, copyright probably actually still held by Disney
BigrTex 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Was used on the Hidden Mickey 50th page. I created the image, cropped from a photograph that I took. Disney holds no copyright.
Bytebear 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply