orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, likely non-free
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, either a non-free promo pic or an unencyclopedic personal photo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, duplicate of Commons image
commons:Image:Keys.jpg, where it is pending deletion due to uncomfirmed license info (sxc.hu image).
Sherool(talk) 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, I question image being PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Wrongly uploaded as free image. Also not particularly useful to use a film screenshot to illustrate real-life phenomena. —
Lenin and McCarthy | (
Complain here) 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed, the caption used implies it's an actual photograph. --
Golbez 01:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of uploader, unlikely correctly licensed as PD-self -- shuld be non-free promo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I think there are two options: either include this image on
Mats Söderlund, or delete it. Nv8200p, why do you think this image should not be included in the article? Many thanks,
Madder 00:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It's real low quality and there is a real good picture in the article already. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is clearly a copyright violation. I cannot find the exact online source, but if you examine
this edit, the uploader clarified that the image is indeed from the
2007-2008 naked rugby league calendar.
Iamunknown 02:56, 30 June 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.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per uploader's request.
Martinp23 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I want to remove it to replace with a PNG one wich is smaller and more efficient.
Giggity Giggity GOO! 03:23, 30 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.
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.
Apart from those who think pseudo artistic reasons are valid for fair use, what does this image show? Arabic written on a womans back which is incomprehensible to English readers and adds nothing to the 2 articles it is used in.
Bleh999 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, the picture shows exactly what people considered offensive about the movie. Might be a bit bold to place only that picture, but I don't think it should be deleted. -
Face 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It's use in
Criticism of the Qur'an goes against
WP:NFCC#1 - this image is replaceable. While it might be appropriate for the article on
Submission (film), it does not currently accompany any critical commentary of the scene in question. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
What do you mean, there isn't any critical commentary? It's directly discussed in the figure caption, and directly the subject of comment in the adjacent paragraph. It's clearly appropriate: it's directly significantly illustrative of the material under discussion, not just decorative. These images led to a murder which rocked a nation's politics to the core, as the article discusses. That makes them pretty significant.
Jheald 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It shouldn't go in the film's infobox. I'll move it to the relevant section. Its placement in
Criticism of the Qur'an appears tangential. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The abuse and rape shown in this image have nothing to do with Islam's teachings, rather they are quite contrary. See for reference:
An-Nisa,_34. There are two steps before beating and beating should not leave any marks on the body. And where does Islam allow for a relative to rape a woman, let alone encourage it?
Yasirniazkhan 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - screenshot from a movie to illustrate a particularly important scene. Low resolution - seems like a clear-cut case of fair use. Cheers,
WilyD 16:23, 3 July 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.
Special photo unused
OsamaK 09:52, 30 June 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.
This appears to be a derivative image created by tracing the original pornographic image. Also questionable on content and properly illustrating the underlying concept. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep pending replacement with better image. -
N 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Where is the original image? What is this a derivative of? ---
RockMFR 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It was obviously traced. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see any indication at all that it might have been traced. ---
RockMFR 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I know the person it was no trace.
Seth slackware 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If not a trace, then a freehand sketch in MS Paint? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out why it looks like that. If freehand, would the artist be able to create an alternate image from a different angle? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep No evidence that this is traced --
Ryan Delaneytalk 01:11, 3 July 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categorised as a "free use image" with a custum copyright tag, but as it turns out it's only allowed for non-commercial and educational use as defined by fair use law, so there is actualy no license at all. I'm sure we can get free licensed photos of a infrared thermometer so it's not actualy usable under fair use on Wikipedia either.
Sherool(talk) 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality as image rotated, likely should be non-free book cover
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality due to image rotation, the subject's page (which marginally meets nobility) already has two images
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality due to image rotation, the subject's page (which marginally meets nobility) already has two images
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absetn uploader, the image is watermarked with a copyright notice (which includes uploaders "name") but tagged as PD-self, as image is a photoshop image from "spy photos" I am not sure it is encyclopedic, a cleanly free image should be possible in 3 months or so
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absetn uploader, the image is watermarked with a copyright notice (which includes uploaders "name") but tagged as PD-self, as image is a photoshop image from "spy photos" I am not sure it is encyclopedic, a cleanly free image should be possible in 3 months or so
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, insufficent information to determine subject of photo, it has a "promo shot" feel
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:14, 30 June 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 Image was uploaded only as a discussion on the authenticity of another image. Image pages are not supposed to be used as discussion space, and no article actually uses the image itself. Also, there's no evidence to support the assertion that it is in the public domain. —
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Keep - Depend on the two evidences,
1.Those imagees are available by the information of the National Archives's 535557.
2.The creator who took those pictures is
zh:王小亭. It was proved, by the latest report of the Japanese scholar.
So copyright were expired.--
Hare-Yukai 23:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - reasons per Hong Qi Gong.
Blueshirts 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Contrary to Hare-Yukai's claim that the image nominated for deletion is in the U.S. National Archives, with ID 535557, it is actually
Image:Nanjing1937 BabyOnTracks.jpeg that is in the National Archives. That is a different image. To the best of my knowledge, the image that I've nominated here is not in the National Archives.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - It was first published by 國民党 in the China. So,
Frank Capra can use it in
The Battle of China(1944). There is the evidence of it in the
The Fake of Nanking. Please see the following articles.
zh:王小亭,
ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the
zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist party) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.. So, The Copyright was already expired. --
Hare-Yukai 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Nothing in your link shows that whoever created the photo that I've nominated for deletion is in the public domain.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
That says that The Battle of China is in the public domain, but once again, there's no evidence that whoever created the photo nominated for deletion here has released the photo to the public domain.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you impossible to find the same scene from 24mim07sec to 24min10sec in the
The Battle of China? --
Hare-Yukai 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr. Hong Qi Gong. Why do you repeat such
rule violations? Removeing the Source informations are violate the rule.--
Hare-Yukai 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If you say so, the
Image:Nanjing1937 BabyOnTracks.jpeg and the image of the National Archive are different from National Archives, too! There is A pillar in the reflected National Archive's image. Doesn't you understand such a thing, either? --
Hare-Yukai 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
That's fine. I did not notice that. I'll personally upload the image directly from National Archives later.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, please go ahead. but It's Name have to be the "Shanghai", not be the "Nanjing". --
Hare-Yukai 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr.
Hong Qi Gong. You don't understand the Copyright Law. the copyright was expired if 30 years passed suppose it is un-opened to the public. Next, the Copyright was expired if (about) 40 years passed since the publification day by the organization's if it was opened to the public.--
Hare-Yukai 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Firstly, it depends on the country. In the U.S., it is actually 70 years from the published date. Secondly, there is no evidence that the specific photo in this nomination was actually published 70 years or even 30 years ago. We only know that the photo in the National Archives is in the public domain, which is a different image from the one we're discussing here.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
You have to have the responsibility that it was proved to published to the public first in the United States. Anyway, that was published to the public before 1963, it was already expired. --
Hare-Yukai 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Such a small differences doesn't support your assertion. --
Hare-Yukai 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr.
HongQiGong. This is just like a lawsuit. You are a
plaintiff. The plaintiff is responsible for the proof. As for you, this problem must prove that it violates the Copyright Law. There are two kind of principles. Those are called the Form-less principle and the Form principle. The United States became the Form-less principle in 1989. In the United States, foreign creation before 1989 isn't protected, without the indication of "Copyright(C)". So you have to prove or find such a indication. If it was published by the Chinese Nationalist Party, they would not indicate "Copyright(C)". --
Hare-Yukai 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The seven images in the top and left panels are taken directly from Capra's film, which is in the public domain as a work of the Federal Government, as can be seen from the source given:
http://www.archive.org/details/BattleOfChina. The image
Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif is in the National Archives and is also in the public domain. This we know, but the source and licensing of the remaining image, the main panel, bottom right, is unclear. What is the source and licensing of that image?
DrKiernan 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are many informations here
Info. . Thay say that it was published in 1937 15th of September by News parade "The Year of 1937". And, it is said with other information, all of the scenes which include the movie of Frank Capra are in the "激動日中戦争史録 (Japan Home Video)". Anyway, those movies were published before 1938. If those scene was in the un-published condition, 30 years passed from the date of taken the pictures, it's Copyright becomes expired. --
Hare-Yukai 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is not shown there. It shows similar images. If it is unpublished then the copyright could still be in force, and as there are similar free-use images, we can not use that one as fair use doesn't apply. Where did you get the image?
DrKiernan 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it is similar images. You have to explain that the pictures taken on August 28 1937 are what kind of reason the copyright wasn't expired. Probably, you can not explain it. I got the main picture from internet. I reconfirm it now. Probably, it is a part of the movie of the
zh:王小亭's. --
Hare-Yukai 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete If the photographer didn't die until 1983 then his images could still be copyrighted unless the copyright was transferred to another person/organisation/government body, who/which has released those rights. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload and
Wikipedia:Image use policy; the uploader of the image must be able to prove that the image is acceptable. I have already given you some leeway to provide that information before deletion, but given the current status and more considered thought and research since my speedy delete decision, I !vote for delete. As I have been involved in the discussion, I shall leave the actual deletion/determining consensus to another admin.
DrKiernan 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Please look it the
Look1937年12月21日 those pictures were published in 21th december 1937. So copyright was expired. Your decision was a mistake. I will see whether you are an honest person.^^ --
Hare-Yukai 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I have seen that picture, which is a cropped version of the one in dispute, but that isn't proof that it is in the public domain. Copyright law is more complex than that. Can anyone make out the picture credit in the bottom right-hand corner of the page?
DrKiernan 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Please explain me how it is complicated (about the Copyright). I want to see the proof that "credit" is denied. --
Hare-Yukai 11:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
From what I've read, Wong was an employee of Hearst Metronome, hence the film is presumably "a work for hire". If that is the case, then that could mean that copyright extends for 120 years from creation, or 95 years from publication, which ever is the shorter. So, 95 + 1937 = 2032. Hence, if this reasoning is correct, the Hearst Corporation retains copyright on the image until 31 December 2032.
DrKiernan 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It is silly. In case of the company's creation, the Copyright was effective 40(+3)years from the first publishing. (In case of first published in the United States at 1937) --
Hare-Yukai 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Anyway, the information of National archive has error, too. When a guess is completely excluded, we can not use it, even if it is in the National archive.(based on your saying) --
Hare-Yukai 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Why wasn't a creator Wang(王小亭) known so far? We guess that he wasn't doing the Copyright(C)-Form as a creator. If he was doing the Copyright(C)-Form, we are supposed to know his name. The United States became the Form-less principle in 1989. The creation published before 1989 without the Copyright(C)-Form is ineffective. Then, we can not find his name from the LIFE magazine probably. If it was so. It's copyright is ineffective by violation of a procedure. (That is another problems.) --
Hare-Yukai 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted. There a number of arguments here, so let me attempt to address them all. First of all, the image title is biased;
User:DrKiernan points out at
Image talk:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg that the original image captions in LOOK magazine
[1] are equally plausible and IMHO more likely as they were written by people who were at the scene. So we know that seven of the eight images are public domain because they come from Capra's film (I'll trust that they appear in the film because I don't have the time to view the whole thing), but the last one is the problem. Under the assumption it was H.S. Wong who seems to have shot all the other photos and who was an employee of
International News Service, he does not own the copyrights because this is a
work for hire. If Hearst published that photo in 1937, then according to
[2], it would be in the public domain now only if Hearst did not renew the copyright. We have no idea if this was done or not. As such, we have to err on the side of caution and delete this image, because it contains a (possibly) copyrighted image, making the entire thing non-free. If someone can prove that INS did not renew their copyrights (I know, difficult to prove a negative), then the image can be restored or reuploaded at a later date. howcheng {
chat} 19:01, 5 July 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.
I do not believe this image meets or could meet our criteria for non-free media. This news article is not particularly significant in the context of
O RLY? and certainly not to the point that we need a picture of the article. What is the purpose of it, besides to show a black and white and rasterbated version of the original image? I do not see how a case could be made for this meeting criterion 8 or 2.
Kotepho 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that it should be deleted. This particular non-free image seems merely incidental. I do not think that it is a good precedent to maintain non-free scans of newspapers just to show that the subject has previously been noted. --
Iamunknown 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Conflicting licenses. Image cannot be GFDL and in the public domain. No eveidence uploader is the copyright holder. Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, I question the PD-self license - no source is provided for the orginal non-cropped image -- it appears like a tv screenshot
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, absent uploader, file consists of 6 images of fossils, the images have been uploaded as individual jpg files
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, absent uploader, is the subject's bio or resume, incorrectly licensed as PD-USGov
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of uploader, either an unencyclopedic personal photo or a non-free promo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, either an unencyclopedic personal photo or likley should be tagged as non-free
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, sole contribution of user, unable to open the PDF file, based on summary provided -- likely would be considered original research
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
(Used only on talk pages) This image is a photo montage from five different images. Unfortunately, two of those five images were subsequently deteremined to be non-free and so this one should be deleted as well.
BigΔT 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If the two images were indeed non-free, then the license is incorrect, and the image should be deleted. It could even be speedy deleted.
JPD (
talk) 18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It should have been deleted a while back, sorry! --
Ali K 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
[retracted] Harmless and cheerful, on one of the most artistic user pages I've seen. Overlook this please. I will supply five other images for deletion in its place. Faithfully
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) & 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It has to be put into a page to keep it, and the author is agreeing to deletion... -
N 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Fred, thank you so much for your support. This is not the image on my user page, however. Rather, it is a dodgy version by an amateur and my good friend
Peter helped me about with a smoother image:) Regards, --
Ali K 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've retracted my plea (and my offer). I'll slink off now,
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Taking a non-free image from a company that uses these images for for-profit purposes limits the copyright owner's rights and the image's profitability. — Rebelguys2talk 21:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
delete I agree with
Rebelguys2, wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not need such an image to illustrate the article if it is not free, having it here as breaking news directly limits the owner's rights and image profitability.
Bleh999 21:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image (and the video it was taken from, as far as I can see) has been shown by every major media outlet today. I believe we are not limiting the commercial opportunities of the copyright owner, who it seems might be
ITN. Every other criterion also seems to be met. ---
RockMFR 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've seen this image multiple times today, like RockMFR, across various news outlets. There is no more profit to be made from it (if there ever was one) due to the now widespread visibility.
P3net 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is more profit to be made off of this, for sure. Let's say authorities catch the people responsible. In articles about those people, this image could be shown. In articles about terrorism in the UK, this image could be shown. The use of this image in those kinds of articles would give them a competitive advantage over Wikipedia. Thus, this is a violation of NFCC #2. howcheng {
chat} 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Any image could be shown, and it would be possible to say that such an image could give them a competitive advantage. However, where's the proof of this? This is not some sort of "exclusive" image. There is no more commercial gain that can be made from this image, in my opinion. It's old news. The commercial value of this was gone pretty much the minute it was an "exclusive" on whatever network aired it first. ---
RockMFR 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image has been shown in every major news outlet because every major news outlet has obtained a license from
ITN to use the image; as such, there is plenty of profit to be made from it. Our use of the image, however, is unlicensed. As Wikipedia is a top-ten website and has a reputation of being very up-to-date, our use of the image dramatically affects how many people are going to the websites (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) that have a license to reproduce the image. Thus affecting ITN's profit. Profit loss and less marketability is not supposed to be a side-effect of fair use and, as you can see at
fairuse.stanford.edu, is one of the main factors in court decisions that something is not a fair use. Delete. --
Iamunknown 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload
Nv8200ptalk 21:14, 30 June 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Neither orphaned nor unencyclopedic. Kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 01:48, 5 July 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
(Not an orphan) This image of a baseball player holding up a trophy is being used under a claim of fair use. But there is nothing iconic about this particular photo so this fair use claim doesn't really hold water.
BigΔT 22:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that there is nothing wrong with this image remaining on Wikipedia. Although it is not a particularly iconic image, it is significant in that it illustrates this baseball player's success while playing for the Texas Rangers. I'd like to thank
ShadowJester07 for adding a list of 8 reasons this image is valid for use on Wikipedia. These 8 reasons cannot be disputed, and reason #3 backs up exactly what I was trying to accomplish when I uploaded this image.
Bookworm1 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, for one thing, showing a guy holding a trophy doesn't add significantly to the article. This isn't a concept that needs to be explained. It isn't something like
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or the
Kent State Shootings where you have to see the photo to understand it. You could not write an encyclopedic article about either topic without a picture. But even without seeing a person holding a trophy, you can still understand it. So the photo really doesn't add to the article in any way more than any other random photo of the guy would - it is purely decorative. But even more than that is the legal issue. Our use is not transformative, so we would fail part of test #1 of the US
fair use law. Our use of this photo doesn't add anything to the sum of human knowledge of the photo. It doesn't enhance the photo. We're merely copying it to decorate our article. --
BigΔT 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm having trouble understanding, which images are really needed on Wikipedia. While I understand your point that the image is not really of true historical significance, it is showing him during an important moment of his life. Strangely, The use of this image
Image:Brady_Quinn_SI.jpg, which just features Brady Quinn posing with teammates
was kept - even though there were several images of Brady Quinn in Notre Dame on Flickr. The image was seemingly kept by the "
Foundation's recent resolution" --►ShadowJester07 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The magazine cover is different ... the article is commenting on the magazine cover itself. Any random photo of Brady Quinn would not serve the same purpose because there is a special significance to SI's coverage of him. If we were only using the image as a stock photo of Brady, then it would be an unacceptable use, but because our purpose in using it is to talk about media coverage, it's fine. --
BigΔT 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with BigDT's comments, especially his second comment. The use of this image in the article is merely decorative. So I think that it should be deleted. --
Iamunknown 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, file is a handwritten letter not in english, unsure of any encyclopedic use
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unsure if image is a madeup drawing of a superhero or is mistagged as a non-free image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, likely non-free
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, either a non-free promo pic or an unencyclopedic personal photo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, duplicate of Commons image
commons:Image:Keys.jpg, where it is pending deletion due to uncomfirmed license info (sxc.hu image).
Sherool(talk) 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, I question image being PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Wrongly uploaded as free image. Also not particularly useful to use a film screenshot to illustrate real-life phenomena. —
Lenin and McCarthy | (
Complain here) 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed, the caption used implies it's an actual photograph. --
Golbez 01:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of uploader, unlikely correctly licensed as PD-self -- shuld be non-free promo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I think there are two options: either include this image on
Mats Söderlund, or delete it. Nv8200p, why do you think this image should not be included in the article? Many thanks,
Madder 00:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It's real low quality and there is a real good picture in the article already. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is clearly a copyright violation. I cannot find the exact online source, but if you examine
this edit, the uploader clarified that the image is indeed from the
2007-2008 naked rugby league calendar.
Iamunknown 02:56, 30 June 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.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per uploader's request.
Martinp23 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I want to remove it to replace with a PNG one wich is smaller and more efficient.
Giggity Giggity GOO! 03:23, 30 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.
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.
Apart from those who think pseudo artistic reasons are valid for fair use, what does this image show? Arabic written on a womans back which is incomprehensible to English readers and adds nothing to the 2 articles it is used in.
Bleh999 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, the picture shows exactly what people considered offensive about the movie. Might be a bit bold to place only that picture, but I don't think it should be deleted. -
Face 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It's use in
Criticism of the Qur'an goes against
WP:NFCC#1 - this image is replaceable. While it might be appropriate for the article on
Submission (film), it does not currently accompany any critical commentary of the scene in question. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
What do you mean, there isn't any critical commentary? It's directly discussed in the figure caption, and directly the subject of comment in the adjacent paragraph. It's clearly appropriate: it's directly significantly illustrative of the material under discussion, not just decorative. These images led to a murder which rocked a nation's politics to the core, as the article discusses. That makes them pretty significant.
Jheald 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It shouldn't go in the film's infobox. I'll move it to the relevant section. Its placement in
Criticism of the Qur'an appears tangential. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The abuse and rape shown in this image have nothing to do with Islam's teachings, rather they are quite contrary. See for reference:
An-Nisa,_34. There are two steps before beating and beating should not leave any marks on the body. And where does Islam allow for a relative to rape a woman, let alone encourage it?
Yasirniazkhan 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - screenshot from a movie to illustrate a particularly important scene. Low resolution - seems like a clear-cut case of fair use. Cheers,
WilyD 16:23, 3 July 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.
Special photo unused
OsamaK 09:52, 30 June 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.
This appears to be a derivative image created by tracing the original pornographic image. Also questionable on content and properly illustrating the underlying concept. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep pending replacement with better image. -
N 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Where is the original image? What is this a derivative of? ---
RockMFR 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It was obviously traced. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see any indication at all that it might have been traced. ---
RockMFR 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I know the person it was no trace.
Seth slackware 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If not a trace, then a freehand sketch in MS Paint? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out why it looks like that. If freehand, would the artist be able to create an alternate image from a different angle? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep No evidence that this is traced --
Ryan Delaneytalk 01:11, 3 July 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categorised as a "free use image" with a custum copyright tag, but as it turns out it's only allowed for non-commercial and educational use as defined by fair use law, so there is actualy no license at all. I'm sure we can get free licensed photos of a infrared thermometer so it's not actualy usable under fair use on Wikipedia either.
Sherool(talk) 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality as image rotated, likely should be non-free book cover
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality due to image rotation, the subject's page (which marginally meets nobility) already has two images
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality due to image rotation, the subject's page (which marginally meets nobility) already has two images
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absetn uploader, the image is watermarked with a copyright notice (which includes uploaders "name") but tagged as PD-self, as image is a photoshop image from "spy photos" I am not sure it is encyclopedic, a cleanly free image should be possible in 3 months or so
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absetn uploader, the image is watermarked with a copyright notice (which includes uploaders "name") but tagged as PD-self, as image is a photoshop image from "spy photos" I am not sure it is encyclopedic, a cleanly free image should be possible in 3 months or so
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, insufficent information to determine subject of photo, it has a "promo shot" feel
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:14, 30 June 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 Image was uploaded only as a discussion on the authenticity of another image. Image pages are not supposed to be used as discussion space, and no article actually uses the image itself. Also, there's no evidence to support the assertion that it is in the public domain. —
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Keep - Depend on the two evidences,
1.Those imagees are available by the information of the National Archives's 535557.
2.The creator who took those pictures is
zh:王小亭. It was proved, by the latest report of the Japanese scholar.
So copyright were expired.--
Hare-Yukai 23:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - reasons per Hong Qi Gong.
Blueshirts 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Contrary to Hare-Yukai's claim that the image nominated for deletion is in the U.S. National Archives, with ID 535557, it is actually
Image:Nanjing1937 BabyOnTracks.jpeg that is in the National Archives. That is a different image. To the best of my knowledge, the image that I've nominated here is not in the National Archives.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - It was first published by 國民党 in the China. So,
Frank Capra can use it in
The Battle of China(1944). There is the evidence of it in the
The Fake of Nanking. Please see the following articles.
zh:王小亭,
ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the
zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist party) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.. So, The Copyright was already expired. --
Hare-Yukai 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Nothing in your link shows that whoever created the photo that I've nominated for deletion is in the public domain.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
That says that The Battle of China is in the public domain, but once again, there's no evidence that whoever created the photo nominated for deletion here has released the photo to the public domain.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you impossible to find the same scene from 24mim07sec to 24min10sec in the
The Battle of China? --
Hare-Yukai 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr. Hong Qi Gong. Why do you repeat such
rule violations? Removeing the Source informations are violate the rule.--
Hare-Yukai 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If you say so, the
Image:Nanjing1937 BabyOnTracks.jpeg and the image of the National Archive are different from National Archives, too! There is A pillar in the reflected National Archive's image. Doesn't you understand such a thing, either? --
Hare-Yukai 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
That's fine. I did not notice that. I'll personally upload the image directly from National Archives later.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, please go ahead. but It's Name have to be the "Shanghai", not be the "Nanjing". --
Hare-Yukai 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr.
Hong Qi Gong. You don't understand the Copyright Law. the copyright was expired if 30 years passed suppose it is un-opened to the public. Next, the Copyright was expired if (about) 40 years passed since the publification day by the organization's if it was opened to the public.--
Hare-Yukai 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Firstly, it depends on the country. In the U.S., it is actually 70 years from the published date. Secondly, there is no evidence that the specific photo in this nomination was actually published 70 years or even 30 years ago. We only know that the photo in the National Archives is in the public domain, which is a different image from the one we're discussing here.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs) 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
You have to have the responsibility that it was proved to published to the public first in the United States. Anyway, that was published to the public before 1963, it was already expired. --
Hare-Yukai 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Such a small differences doesn't support your assertion. --
Hare-Yukai 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Mr.
HongQiGong. This is just like a lawsuit. You are a
plaintiff. The plaintiff is responsible for the proof. As for you, this problem must prove that it violates the Copyright Law. There are two kind of principles. Those are called the Form-less principle and the Form principle. The United States became the Form-less principle in 1989. In the United States, foreign creation before 1989 isn't protected, without the indication of "Copyright(C)". So you have to prove or find such a indication. If it was published by the Chinese Nationalist Party, they would not indicate "Copyright(C)". --
Hare-Yukai 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The seven images in the top and left panels are taken directly from Capra's film, which is in the public domain as a work of the Federal Government, as can be seen from the source given:
http://www.archive.org/details/BattleOfChina. The image
Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif is in the National Archives and is also in the public domain. This we know, but the source and licensing of the remaining image, the main panel, bottom right, is unclear. What is the source and licensing of that image?
DrKiernan 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are many informations here
Info. . Thay say that it was published in 1937 15th of September by News parade "The Year of 1937". And, it is said with other information, all of the scenes which include the movie of Frank Capra are in the "激動日中戦争史録 (Japan Home Video)". Anyway, those movies were published before 1938. If those scene was in the un-published condition, 30 years passed from the date of taken the pictures, it's Copyright becomes expired. --
Hare-Yukai 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is not shown there. It shows similar images. If it is unpublished then the copyright could still be in force, and as there are similar free-use images, we can not use that one as fair use doesn't apply. Where did you get the image?
DrKiernan 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it is similar images. You have to explain that the pictures taken on August 28 1937 are what kind of reason the copyright wasn't expired. Probably, you can not explain it. I got the main picture from internet. I reconfirm it now. Probably, it is a part of the movie of the
zh:王小亭's. --
Hare-Yukai 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete If the photographer didn't die until 1983 then his images could still be copyrighted unless the copyright was transferred to another person/organisation/government body, who/which has released those rights. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload and
Wikipedia:Image use policy; the uploader of the image must be able to prove that the image is acceptable. I have already given you some leeway to provide that information before deletion, but given the current status and more considered thought and research since my speedy delete decision, I !vote for delete. As I have been involved in the discussion, I shall leave the actual deletion/determining consensus to another admin.
DrKiernan 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Please look it the
Look1937年12月21日 those pictures were published in 21th december 1937. So copyright was expired. Your decision was a mistake. I will see whether you are an honest person.^^ --
Hare-Yukai 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I have seen that picture, which is a cropped version of the one in dispute, but that isn't proof that it is in the public domain. Copyright law is more complex than that. Can anyone make out the picture credit in the bottom right-hand corner of the page?
DrKiernan 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Please explain me how it is complicated (about the Copyright). I want to see the proof that "credit" is denied. --
Hare-Yukai 11:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
From what I've read, Wong was an employee of Hearst Metronome, hence the film is presumably "a work for hire". If that is the case, then that could mean that copyright extends for 120 years from creation, or 95 years from publication, which ever is the shorter. So, 95 + 1937 = 2032. Hence, if this reasoning is correct, the Hearst Corporation retains copyright on the image until 31 December 2032.
DrKiernan 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It is silly. In case of the company's creation, the Copyright was effective 40(+3)years from the first publishing. (In case of first published in the United States at 1937) --
Hare-Yukai 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Anyway, the information of National archive has error, too. When a guess is completely excluded, we can not use it, even if it is in the National archive.(based on your saying) --
Hare-Yukai 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Why wasn't a creator Wang(王小亭) known so far? We guess that he wasn't doing the Copyright(C)-Form as a creator. If he was doing the Copyright(C)-Form, we are supposed to know his name. The United States became the Form-less principle in 1989. The creation published before 1989 without the Copyright(C)-Form is ineffective. Then, we can not find his name from the LIFE magazine probably. If it was so. It's copyright is ineffective by violation of a procedure. (That is another problems.) --
Hare-Yukai 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted. There a number of arguments here, so let me attempt to address them all. First of all, the image title is biased;
User:DrKiernan points out at
Image talk:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg that the original image captions in LOOK magazine
[1] are equally plausible and IMHO more likely as they were written by people who were at the scene. So we know that seven of the eight images are public domain because they come from Capra's film (I'll trust that they appear in the film because I don't have the time to view the whole thing), but the last one is the problem. Under the assumption it was H.S. Wong who seems to have shot all the other photos and who was an employee of
International News Service, he does not own the copyrights because this is a
work for hire. If Hearst published that photo in 1937, then according to
[2], it would be in the public domain now only if Hearst did not renew the copyright. We have no idea if this was done or not. As such, we have to err on the side of caution and delete this image, because it contains a (possibly) copyrighted image, making the entire thing non-free. If someone can prove that INS did not renew their copyrights (I know, difficult to prove a negative), then the image can be restored or reuploaded at a later date. howcheng {
chat} 19:01, 5 July 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.
I do not believe this image meets or could meet our criteria for non-free media. This news article is not particularly significant in the context of
O RLY? and certainly not to the point that we need a picture of the article. What is the purpose of it, besides to show a black and white and rasterbated version of the original image? I do not see how a case could be made for this meeting criterion 8 or 2.
Kotepho 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that it should be deleted. This particular non-free image seems merely incidental. I do not think that it is a good precedent to maintain non-free scans of newspapers just to show that the subject has previously been noted. --
Iamunknown 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Conflicting licenses. Image cannot be GFDL and in the public domain. No eveidence uploader is the copyright holder. Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, I question the PD-self license - no source is provided for the orginal non-cropped image -- it appears like a tv screenshot
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, absent uploader, file consists of 6 images of fossils, the images have been uploaded as individual jpg files
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, absent uploader, is the subject's bio or resume, incorrectly licensed as PD-USGov
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of uploader, either an unencyclopedic personal photo or a non-free promo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, either an unencyclopedic personal photo or likley should be tagged as non-free
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, sole contribution of user, unable to open the PDF file, based on summary provided -- likely would be considered original research
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
(Used only on talk pages) This image is a photo montage from five different images. Unfortunately, two of those five images were subsequently deteremined to be non-free and so this one should be deleted as well.
BigΔT 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If the two images were indeed non-free, then the license is incorrect, and the image should be deleted. It could even be speedy deleted.
JPD (
talk) 18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It should have been deleted a while back, sorry! --
Ali K 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
[retracted] Harmless and cheerful, on one of the most artistic user pages I've seen. Overlook this please. I will supply five other images for deletion in its place. Faithfully
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) & 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It has to be put into a page to keep it, and the author is agreeing to deletion... -
N 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Fred, thank you so much for your support. This is not the image on my user page, however. Rather, it is a dodgy version by an amateur and my good friend
Peter helped me about with a smoother image:) Regards, --
Ali K 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've retracted my plea (and my offer). I'll slink off now,
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Taking a non-free image from a company that uses these images for for-profit purposes limits the copyright owner's rights and the image's profitability. — Rebelguys2talk 21:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
delete I agree with
Rebelguys2, wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not need such an image to illustrate the article if it is not free, having it here as breaking news directly limits the owner's rights and image profitability.
Bleh999 21:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. This image (and the video it was taken from, as far as I can see) has been shown by every major media outlet today. I believe we are not limiting the commercial opportunities of the copyright owner, who it seems might be
ITN. Every other criterion also seems to be met. ---
RockMFR 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've seen this image multiple times today, like RockMFR, across various news outlets. There is no more profit to be made from it (if there ever was one) due to the now widespread visibility.
P3net 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is more profit to be made off of this, for sure. Let's say authorities catch the people responsible. In articles about those people, this image could be shown. In articles about terrorism in the UK, this image could be shown. The use of this image in those kinds of articles would give them a competitive advantage over Wikipedia. Thus, this is a violation of NFCC #2. howcheng {
chat} 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Any image could be shown, and it would be possible to say that such an image could give them a competitive advantage. However, where's the proof of this? This is not some sort of "exclusive" image. There is no more commercial gain that can be made from this image, in my opinion. It's old news. The commercial value of this was gone pretty much the minute it was an "exclusive" on whatever network aired it first. ---
RockMFR 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The image has been shown in every major news outlet because every major news outlet has obtained a license from
ITN to use the image; as such, there is plenty of profit to be made from it. Our use of the image, however, is unlicensed. As Wikipedia is a top-ten website and has a reputation of being very up-to-date, our use of the image dramatically affects how many people are going to the websites (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) that have a license to reproduce the image. Thus affecting ITN's profit. Profit loss and less marketability is not supposed to be a side-effect of fair use and, as you can see at
fairuse.stanford.edu, is one of the main factors in court decisions that something is not a fair use. Delete. --
Iamunknown 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload
Nv8200ptalk 21:14, 30 June 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Neither orphaned nor unencyclopedic. Kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 01:48, 5 July 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
(Not an orphan) This image of a baseball player holding up a trophy is being used under a claim of fair use. But there is nothing iconic about this particular photo so this fair use claim doesn't really hold water.
BigΔT 22:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe that there is nothing wrong with this image remaining on Wikipedia. Although it is not a particularly iconic image, it is significant in that it illustrates this baseball player's success while playing for the Texas Rangers. I'd like to thank
ShadowJester07 for adding a list of 8 reasons this image is valid for use on Wikipedia. These 8 reasons cannot be disputed, and reason #3 backs up exactly what I was trying to accomplish when I uploaded this image.
Bookworm1 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, for one thing, showing a guy holding a trophy doesn't add significantly to the article. This isn't a concept that needs to be explained. It isn't something like
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or the
Kent State Shootings where you have to see the photo to understand it. You could not write an encyclopedic article about either topic without a picture. But even without seeing a person holding a trophy, you can still understand it. So the photo really doesn't add to the article in any way more than any other random photo of the guy would - it is purely decorative. But even more than that is the legal issue. Our use is not transformative, so we would fail part of test #1 of the US
fair use law. Our use of this photo doesn't add anything to the sum of human knowledge of the photo. It doesn't enhance the photo. We're merely copying it to decorate our article. --
BigΔT 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm having trouble understanding, which images are really needed on Wikipedia. While I understand your point that the image is not really of true historical significance, it is showing him during an important moment of his life. Strangely, The use of this image
Image:Brady_Quinn_SI.jpg, which just features Brady Quinn posing with teammates
was kept - even though there were several images of Brady Quinn in Notre Dame on Flickr. The image was seemingly kept by the "
Foundation's recent resolution" --►ShadowJester07 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The magazine cover is different ... the article is commenting on the magazine cover itself. Any random photo of Brady Quinn would not serve the same purpose because there is a special significance to SI's coverage of him. If we were only using the image as a stock photo of Brady, then it would be an unacceptable use, but because our purpose in using it is to talk about media coverage, it's fine. --
BigΔT 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with BigDT's comments, especially his second comment. The use of this image in the article is merely decorative. So I think that it should be deleted. --
Iamunknown 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, file is a handwritten letter not in english, unsure of any encyclopedic use
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unsure if image is a madeup drawing of a superhero or is mistagged as a non-free image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply