Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 20
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scan of the first page of a story by Walter Tevis. There is nothing added to the article by including this image. B (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Walter Tevis is closely identified with pool halls, having used that for settings in both short stories and novels, notably with the huge success of The Hustler film in 1961. That was when most people became aware of Walter Tevis, but this page demonstrates that he reached a national audience with that type of material years before The Hustler. Further, Collier's was a major market for writers of short stories, and this image provides proof that Tevis began at the very top of the magazine markets. Lastly, it enables one to sample Tevis' writing style and also shows the alliance of writer Tevis and illustrator Gillen in a slick magazine presentation only a short time before Collier's ended its long run. Thus, it serves as an encyclopedic historical document in several ways. Pepso2 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused here. If the purpose of the image is to "prove" that his work was published in Collier's, that can be accomplished in text. Non-free images (well, even free images) aren't used to "prove" anything - they are used because they enhance the article. If there was some dispute - for example, if a runner was called out, but a photo conclusively proves he was safe and that photo is itself the subject of news articles, then its inclusion makes sense. But if there's no question that he was published in Collier's and this isn't a matter of debate, we don't need a photo to prove it. If an excerpt from the text is needed so that the user can sample the writer's writing style, that can be done with text in the article - an image isn't needed. If this illustration is somehow important and its exclusion would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic, the image could be cropped just to show the illustration and the illustration could be shrunk to a web resolution. But I don't see how an illustration by a third party is essential. --B (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversely, an interior page from Startling Mystery Stories could be used to show how Stephen King started his career on the bottom rung of magazine markets. The use of an interior page from Collier's shows how Tevis was at the top rung. Pictures carry information. Young people who use Wikipedia may never have opened either type of magazine and thus, such images are educational. Here's a Wikipedia discussion of how research from a single issue of a vintage magazine can add info to an article [1] but even so, images of those interior pages could add to an understanding of what the writer has briefly inserted into the article. Pepso2 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see from the talk page and you're missing the point. In the article text, you can say words to the effect of, "Walter Trevis's career began with his story being printed in Collier's." What is it that you are adding to that statement by showing a picture of it? What is it that is unclear about that sentence that becomes clearer with an image? --B (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She bought a 1957 issue of McCall's at a yard sale, and it has given her information to add to the Wikipedia page about that magazine and its contributors. There is a vast wasteland of 20th-century magazines containing valuable info which is not to be found anywhere on the Internet. These publications can be mined for millions of facts and images to make articles more encyclopedic. Pepso2 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's true that there are a lot of periodicals out there that could be useful, that doesn't make it ok to scan the article in and post it on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She bought a 1957 issue of McCall's at a yard sale, and it has given her information to add to the Wikipedia page about that magazine and its contributors. There is a vast wasteland of 20th-century magazines containing valuable info which is not to be found anywhere on the Internet. These publications can be mined for millions of facts and images to make articles more encyclopedic. Pepso2 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see from the talk page and you're missing the point. In the article text, you can say words to the effect of, "Walter Trevis's career began with his story being printed in Collier's." What is it that you are adding to that statement by showing a picture of it? What is it that is unclear about that sentence that becomes clearer with an image? --B (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversely, an interior page from Startling Mystery Stories could be used to show how Stephen King started his career on the bottom rung of magazine markets. The use of an interior page from Collier's shows how Tevis was at the top rung. Pictures carry information. Young people who use Wikipedia may never have opened either type of magazine and thus, such images are educational. Here's a Wikipedia discussion of how research from a single issue of a vintage magazine can add info to an article [1] but even so, images of those interior pages could add to an understanding of what the writer has briefly inserted into the article. Pepso2 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused here. If the purpose of the image is to "prove" that his work was published in Collier's, that can be accomplished in text. Non-free images (well, even free images) aren't used to "prove" anything - they are used because they enhance the article. If there was some dispute - for example, if a runner was called out, but a photo conclusively proves he was safe and that photo is itself the subject of news articles, then its inclusion makes sense. But if there's no question that he was published in Collier's and this isn't a matter of debate, we don't need a photo to prove it. If an excerpt from the text is needed so that the user can sample the writer's writing style, that can be done with text in the article - an image isn't needed. If this illustration is somehow important and its exclusion would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic, the image could be cropped just to show the illustration and the illustration could be shrunk to a web resolution. But I don't see how an illustration by a third party is essential. --B (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, adds nothing to the article. If it were rescaled to low-resolution as required by WP:NFC, the text would be illegible anyway. At its current size it's a copyvio; at an acceptable size it's useless. +Angr 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither usage of this image is accompanied by critical commentary of the same. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Allstarcup1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs).
- Tagged as a TV screenshot, it's obviously a press photo of the participants. In any event, it's being used in the infobox, not for critical commentary on anything - the TV broadcast, the photo itself, anything. B (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no critical commentary, non-free image of living people. +Angr 05:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: - Kept - image is not a press photo - Peripitus (Talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:JocelyneCoutureNowak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WhisperToMe (notify | contribs).
- Associated Press photo of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, who died in the Virginia Tech massacre being used only to show what she looked like - not for any critical commentary. The use is flagrant copyright infringement - our use of the photo without paying royalties is stealing. If it were a legitimate "fair use" to use a photo like this without paying royalties, every news photographer would be out of a job because nobody would pay for their work any more - they would just claim fair use. Virginia Tech has a photo available at [2] that was widely distributed by the school to the media. Replacing this one with Tech's non-free image would allow us to use something that is in keeping with the character intended by the copyright holder, as opposed to stealing a photo for our convenience. B (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the AP and Vtech photos are equally nonfree. We may use one or the other according to our nonfree policies. Just because the AP is the one owning this particular photo doesn't exempt them from fair use. They are to yield to United States fair use laws, expecting no permission or payment as long as the fair use is in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not equally non-free. Virginia Tech (VTech is an electronics company, Virginia Tech is a school) provided a photo to the media to use. Our use of the photo from Virginia Tech would meet WP:NFCC criterion #2, respect for commercial opportunities. Virginia Tech has no intention of selling their photo of Couture-Nowak, while, on the other hand, the sole purpose of the Associated Press taking the photo was to sell it. Using Virginia Tech's photo would not be copyright infringement. Using the AP photo is. --B (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. says "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - So how does Wikipedia using one AP photo to illustrate the subject of an article replace "the original market role" of the AP photo? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AP is in the business of selling photographs to use in news articles, books, websites, etc. By using it without permission, we deny the AP the right to charge us a royalty for our use. Wikipedia content is used on hundreds of websites. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc. By using this photo, we are denying the AP the right to charge all of these hundreds of websites a royalty. --B (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with non-press agency photo - As per Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- This one might be a "file courtesy photo": http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/jocelyne_couturenowak/index.html says "Nova Scotia Agricultural College, via Associated Press" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AP is in the business of selling photographs to use in news articles, books, websites, etc. By using it without permission, we deny the AP the right to charge us a royalty for our use. Wikipedia content is used on hundreds of websites. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc. By using this photo, we are denying the AP the right to charge all of these hundreds of websites a royalty. --B (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. says "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - So how does Wikipedia using one AP photo to illustrate the subject of an article replace "the original market role" of the AP photo? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not equally non-free. Virginia Tech (VTech is an electronics company, Virginia Tech is a school) provided a photo to the media to use. Our use of the photo from Virginia Tech would meet WP:NFCC criterion #2, respect for commercial opportunities. Virginia Tech has no intention of selling their photo of Couture-Nowak, while, on the other hand, the sole purpose of the Associated Press taking the photo was to sell it. Using Virginia Tech's photo would not be copyright infringement. Using the AP photo is. --B (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the AP and Vtech photos are equally nonfree. We may use one or the other according to our nonfree policies. Just because the AP is the one owning this particular photo doesn't exempt them from fair use. They are to yield to United States fair use laws, expecting no permission or payment as long as the fair use is in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:NFCC#2. +Angr 05:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was provided by the Nova Scotia Agricultural College to the AP, so wouldn't this be a file courtesy photo? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks that way from the link you provided above ... if it is, it doesn't violate the guideline. My personal opinion is that if someone was alive in the age of digital cameras, and wasn't a recluse, we should avoid fair use images of them, but that's my personal opinion and not anything resembling policy. If this is, in fact, a photo from her school, then it doesn't violate our policy, nor, we believe, US law. --B (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it does originate from Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Keep the image as it is not actually a press agency photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was provided by the Nova Scotia Agricultural College to the AP, so wouldn't this be a file courtesy photo? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not an AP photo. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - This essentially comes down to Wikipedia:NFCC#2, where Wikipedia has to respect the intended commercial uses of the photo. Killiondude (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- News media photo of a person who died in 2009 being used only to show what he looks like. The use is flagrant copyright infringement - our use of the photo without paying royalties is stealing. If it were a legitimate "fair use" to use a photo like this without paying royalties, every news photographer would be out of a job because nobody would pay for their work any more - they would just claim fair use. The image description page incorrectly claims "Because no fee is charged to view the image at its source, use of this image will not damage commercial opportunities." But our use of this image robs the copyright holder of their opportunity to collect royalties from us and from our innumerable downstream uses. B (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How does this fail our nonfree content criteria? This isn't "stealing" any more than any other nonfree image being used for identification, and our standards permit such use for dead individuals. Look at the wording of {{Non-free fair use in}}: we are permitted to use nonfree content to illustrate the subject in question in certain circumstances, into which circumstances this image falls. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, observe that the use of this image will not damage commercial opportunities any more than will the proper use of any other nonfree image. The point of such a statement is exclusively that as one need not pay to view the image at its source, the source will not be deprived of money paid by those who simply wish to view the image — in contrast to an image only available from a webpage behind a firewall. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You also fail to observe that the image is not being used simply for identification: the subject of the image is notable primarily because of his career, and the image is being used to depict him in the course of his work. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the image itself iconic? No, of course not. Use of this photo is a flagrant copyright violation. If our policies don't make that clear, then they should be scrapped. --B (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of B's rationale is that he disputes the copyright law validity of WP:NONFREE. I asked him to ask Mike Godwin or to go to the NONFREE talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I dispute your interpretation of it. Item #6 under images of Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use plainly says that this use is inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with non-press agency photo In that case you are correct: Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use indeed says "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. " WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I dispute your interpretation of it. Item #6 under images of Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use plainly says that this use is inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of B's rationale is that he disputes the copyright law validity of WP:NONFREE. I asked him to ask Mike Godwin or to go to the NONFREE talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the image itself iconic? No, of course not. Use of this photo is a flagrant copyright violation. If our policies don't make that clear, then they should be scrapped. --B (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You also fail to observe that the image is not being used simply for identification: the subject of the image is notable primarily because of his career, and the image is being used to depict him in the course of his work. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, observe that the use of this image will not damage commercial opportunities any more than will the proper use of any other nonfree image. The point of such a statement is exclusively that as one need not pay to view the image at its source, the source will not be deprived of money paid by those who simply wish to view the image — in contrast to an image only available from a webpage behind a firewall. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I've tried and failed to see any of our non-free content criteria that this image fails, and those who know me will know that I try very hard. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use says that among the generally not acceptable things to upload is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. " WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only concerned about policy here. Guidelines are themselves designed to elucidate and elaborate upon policy, but are not necessarily binding and do not always represent consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle: Guidelines are to be followed unless you find a good reason not to follow them. Because what I quoted is a guideline, you will have to find a way to explain why the guideline should not be followed. So, yes, you need to be concerned about those guidelines too. I do not believe that, in this case, there is a good reason not to follow the guideline. We could look on Flickr to try to find free images of him. Even if there aren't any, there are non-press agency nonfree photos which can be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only concerned about policy here. Guidelines are themselves designed to elucidate and elaborate upon policy, but are not necessarily binding and do not always represent consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use says that among the generally not acceptable things to upload is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. " WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-free image from a press agency violates WP:NFCC#2. +Angr 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. This essentially comes down to Wikipedia:NFCC#2, where Wikipedia has to respect the intended commercial uses of the photo. Killiondude (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:EvelynGandy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Allstarecho (notify | contribs).
- News media photo of a person who died in 2007 being used only to show what she looks like. The use is flagrant copyright infringement - our use of the photo without paying royalties is stealing. If it were a legitimate "fair use" to use a photo like this without paying royalties, every news photographer would be out of a job because nobody would pay for their work any more - they would just claim fair use. B (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How does this fail our nonfree content criteria? This isn't "stealing" any more than any other nonfree image being used for identification, and our standards permit such use for dead individuals. Look at the wording of {{Non-free fair use in}}, which would apply here equally as well as the current {{Non-free historic image}}: we are permitted to use nonfree content to illustrate the subject in question in certain circumstances, into which circumstances this image falls. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well within fair-use policy and as she's dead, a free image isn't likely forthcoming. - allstar▼echo 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the image itself iconic? No, of course not. Use of this photo is a flagrant copyright violation. If our policies don't make that clear, then they should be scrapped. --B (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our non-free content criteria IS our guideline on which images are acceptable and which images are not. We can and will continue to justifiably use AP photos under our non-free content criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- US copyright law trumps our non-free content criteria. Besides, even if it didn't, this use fails #2 - respect for commercial opportunities. The sole reason this photo was taken was to sell it to content providers like Wikipedia and our numerous downstream commercial uses. By using it without permission, we are robbing them of the thousands of dollars in royalties that they are rightly due for the use of this photo. By the way, I posted this on yesterday's IFD page, but I'll post it here too. There is a piece about Getty suing a gossip website that was using pictures of Brad Pitt's + Angelina Jolie's baby without permission is almost directly on point [3]. If you think that using a news media photo under a claim of fair use because they happen to have been fortunate enough to get a picture of something we want is acceptable, then that's a failure of Wikipedia. Were Wikipedia to get a c&d, the image would be removed immediately. Were we to for some inconceivable reason go to court (we wouldn't, we're not that stupid, but if it did happen) it would be the easiest copyright infringement case of all time. If you look up "copyright infringement" in the dictionary, this would be the example - it's not even worth arguing. --B (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Our Fair Use policies and guidelines are 100% in compliance with U.S. copyright and fair use laws. Mike Godwin, our legal advisor, ensures this.
- 2. Nobody plans on selling anything to Wikipedia; we always get it for free. We either wait to take a free photo if possible, or get it for free under fair use guidelines, if it is not possible.
- 3. You said: "There is a piece about Getty suing a gossip website that was using pictures of Brad Pitt's + Angelina Jolie's baby without permission is almost directly on point" - Jolie's baby is a living person, so we would not have fair use justification for taking a photo of Jolie's baby. If Jolie's baby is much older (altered appearance), there is a particular reason to include a picture of Jolie's baby at that particular age, and no free photo exists, then at that point we could do a fair use.
- 4. Under fair use we are allowed to take copyrighted things for free, with no payment, as long as we can justify it under fair use laws. B, what you need to do is show how it fails our own fair use guidelines, or otherwise uote U.S. fair use laws, if you want to argue why fair use is not justified or justified.
- 5. If you still feel that Wikipedia's fair use guidelines are flawed in terms of the law, why not send an e-mail or a letter to Mike Godwin. He knows what is legal and he will explain it for you.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the thing about a living person vs a dead person is a Wikipedia-madeup policy. It has no bearing whatsoever in law. Second, there are no "U.S. fair use laws". There is one section in title 17 - you can read it at [4] - and a bunch of court rulings. The key in this case is #4 - "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." While you are right when you say that Getty/AP/etc have no plans on selling anything to Wikipedia (I think the reason you are looking for is "because we have no intention of paying for it") there have been two cases that I can think of where the court ruled that it doesn't matter - Rogers v. Koons and Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group. In both cases, the court ruled that even though the respondent's use of the copyrighted material was not something that the plaintiff had ever considered doing and that they had no plans whatsoever for exploiting their work in that way, it still counted as copyright infringement. It's no different than the argument for illegally downloading mp3s - "I'm not going to buy the CD anyway so it's not hurting them if I download this song." That may sound good, but it has nothing to do with reality. --B (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to argue about "made up" Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We are using WP:NONFREE and its related policies and guidelines as our standard bearers. If you want to dispute WP:NONFREE, go to its talk page or e-mail Mike Godwin, the legal advisor. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with non-press agency photo - As per Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- US copyright law trumps our non-free content criteria. Besides, even if it didn't, this use fails #2 - respect for commercial opportunities. The sole reason this photo was taken was to sell it to content providers like Wikipedia and our numerous downstream commercial uses. By using it without permission, we are robbing them of the thousands of dollars in royalties that they are rightly due for the use of this photo. By the way, I posted this on yesterday's IFD page, but I'll post it here too. There is a piece about Getty suing a gossip website that was using pictures of Brad Pitt's + Angelina Jolie's baby without permission is almost directly on point [3]. If you think that using a news media photo under a claim of fair use because they happen to have been fortunate enough to get a picture of something we want is acceptable, then that's a failure of Wikipedia. Were Wikipedia to get a c&d, the image would be removed immediately. Were we to for some inconceivable reason go to court (we wouldn't, we're not that stupid, but if it did happen) it would be the easiest copyright infringement case of all time. If you look up "copyright infringement" in the dictionary, this would be the example - it's not even worth arguing. --B (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our non-free content criteria IS our guideline on which images are acceptable and which images are not. We can and will continue to justifiably use AP photos under our non-free content criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the image itself iconic? No, of course not. Use of this photo is a flagrant copyright violation. If our policies don't make that clear, then they should be scrapped. --B (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Suggesting this is a historic image is a nonsense. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's being called a "historic image" because the subject is dead, presumably; what would you say about using {{Non-free fair use in}}? Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have fewer objections. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However one needs to use a non-press agency image because Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use has in its unacceptable list 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't all or mostly all commercial photographs (except those taken by our grandfathers in the fifties) syndicated to agencies in this or that way? NVO (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. But in any case IMO the "unacceptable use list" is downright silly. First of all, press angencies have no more rights over their images than an uploader to Flicr or a blog. None. Copyright laws protect each individual photo and whether the owner of the photo is Microsoft or aunt Sally, the protection for the photo is the same. The only difference is the financial ability of the owner to sue infringers. By silly, I also mean #7 on the list, "A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds." Comical definitions like that pretty much undermine the validity of the list. Who put that list together? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is standard #4 under the US fair use law: "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work". Allowing a media photo to be used under a claim of fair use essentially eliminates any market value for it. (Nobody would ever pay royalties for it.) Using a photo from some other source probably doesn't have that issue because they weren't trying to sell license to print it anyway. That's why the guideline says what it says. That's why at previous discussions like Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_22#G12_needs_revising, there hasn't been any significant level of disagreement that press photos should be deleted on sight. --B (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement, "a claim of fair use essentially eliminates any market value for it." Not true. Every claim of "fair use" is independant and isolated from any other use and every subsequent user needs their own claim. There is no linkage. No saying "they used it so now I can use it." The market value is not affected except in a positive way: When a lot of non-profit users use a particular photo by a professional (or even amateur) photographer under a claim of "fair use," as in the case of the Kennedy assassination photos, for example, or when it's used by educational and non-profit organizations, the original photo's value go up fast. A lot of press agency photographers are paid to go to war zones and when they happen to get a major event photographed that has historical or news value, a lot of non-profit publications or web sites can use it to support stories of the event under a "fair use" claim. It can
noteven be for profit in some cases. Those photos and the photographers suddenly become notable and you'll sometimes see museums displaying dozens of photos by the same photographer just because of their notability. Then all their photos become more valuable to "for-profit" publications, galleries, etc. You'd be surprised how many news photographers love to go to war or disaster zones. They're also thrilled seeing their name listed in the byline. I think you'd have a hard time finding even one photographer who wouldn't want their photos published in Wikipedia with a "fair use" claim and attribution. It's a value enhancer, not eliminator. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- However Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use says that among the generally not acceptable things to upload is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. " - If the photo itself is discussed with sourced commentary (this often happens with wartime photos), then you can use it. Otherwise we need a non-AP/UPI image. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement, "a claim of fair use essentially eliminates any market value for it." Not true. Every claim of "fair use" is independant and isolated from any other use and every subsequent user needs their own claim. There is no linkage. No saying "they used it so now I can use it." The market value is not affected except in a positive way: When a lot of non-profit users use a particular photo by a professional (or even amateur) photographer under a claim of "fair use," as in the case of the Kennedy assassination photos, for example, or when it's used by educational and non-profit organizations, the original photo's value go up fast. A lot of press agency photographers are paid to go to war zones and when they happen to get a major event photographed that has historical or news value, a lot of non-profit publications or web sites can use it to support stories of the event under a "fair use" claim. It can
- The difference is standard #4 under the US fair use law: "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work". Allowing a media photo to be used under a claim of fair use essentially eliminates any market value for it. (Nobody would ever pay royalties for it.) Using a photo from some other source probably doesn't have that issue because they weren't trying to sell license to print it anyway. That's why the guideline says what it says. That's why at previous discussions like Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_22#G12_needs_revising, there hasn't been any significant level of disagreement that press photos should be deleted on sight. --B (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. But in any case IMO the "unacceptable use list" is downright silly. First of all, press angencies have no more rights over their images than an uploader to Flicr or a blog. None. Copyright laws protect each individual photo and whether the owner of the photo is Microsoft or aunt Sally, the protection for the photo is the same. The only difference is the financial ability of the owner to sue infringers. By silly, I also mean #7 on the list, "A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds." Comical definitions like that pretty much undermine the validity of the list. Who put that list together? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't all or mostly all commercial photographs (except those taken by our grandfathers in the fifties) syndicated to agencies in this or that way? NVO (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However one needs to use a non-press agency image because Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use has in its unacceptable list 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have fewer objections. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's being called a "historic image" because the subject is dead, presumably; what would you say about using {{Non-free fair use in}}? Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-free image by a press agency violates WP:NFCC#2. +Angr 05:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by WhisperToMe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- News media photo of a person who died in 2009 being used only to show what she looks like. The use is flagrant copyright infringement - our use of the photo without paying royalties is stealing. If it were a legitimate "fair use" to use a photo like this without paying royalties, every news photographer would be out of a job because nobody would pay for their work any more - they would just claim fair use. Besides, Kay Yow was a public figure and we certainly have reasonable expectation of a free image becoming available. We could email one of the many flickr users who has uploaded a photo of her - like [5] - and ask for them to license it to us under an acceptable license. Even if we couldn't find a free image, we could use a promotional image from the school's media guide, which is readily available at [6], and would be keeping in the character intended by the copyright holder, as opposed to using this image, which is stealing from the AP. B (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This file was recently (2 June 2009) nom'd for deletion and the result was "keep". This is an appropriate fair use for a deceased person and there is no need to rehash the previous discussion all over again. Nor is such inflammatory language as "stealing" appropriate. JGHowes talk 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that decision was wrong and the admin that closed it deserves a wet trout. This is a flagrant copyright violation - you can't use an AP photo of a dead person just because you want to. Our use of the photo robs the AP of their right to collect royalties for the image. If we were using it in an article about the photo itself (or about the photographer, the quality of AP's photographic prowess, etc) then it would be an appropriate fair use, but to use it here is unambiguous copyright violation. --B (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How does this fail our nonfree content criteria? This isn't "stealing" any more than any other nonfree image being used for identification, and our standards permit such use for dead individuals. Look at the wording of {{Non-free fair use in}}: we are permitted to use nonfree content to illustrate the subject in question in certain circumstances, into which circumstances this image falls. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because our non-free content criteria says it doesn't make it true. You can't use an AP photo under a claim of fair use (unless your purpose is to comment on the photo itself. Just think about it for a minute and quit assuming that Wikipedia policies are under divine inspiration. --B (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our non-free content criteria IS our guideline on which images are acceptable and which images are not. We can and will continue to justifiably use AP photos under our non-free content criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're wrong. But even if you weren't, why in God's name would you want to use this image instead of a vastly superior image from NC State's media guide? Also, there are numerous images on flickr so we certainly have a reasonable expectation that someone there would be willing to release one under a free license ... or if not someone there, that someone who attended the hundreds of games that Yow coached would be willing to release one. Kay Yow was a public figure and a gracious plenty pictures were taken of her. Her photo is more replaceable than ones of most living people. --B (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well, you're wrong" - B, please send an e-mail to Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's legal advisor. He will explain it all to you.
- Okay, well then replace the photo. Go on Flickr. Make sure that the people who uploaded the pictures are the copyrighted holders. If the image is already licensed as Creative Commons or Creative Commons ShareAlike, upload it and remove all instances of the copyrighted image from the article. If the image is NOT Creative Commons or Creative Commons ShareAlike, then ask the photographer to have it relicensed. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said when you challenged me to this on my talk page, foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy #3 says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ... ." We can reasonably expect someone to upload a free photo even if that free photo does not exist right now, today. It is not my job to produce a free photo in order to get rid of a non-free one. Nor is it ever my job to produce a free photo in order to get id of one that is a flagrant copyright violation and for which nobody in the real world (ie, adults outside of Wikipedia) would ever even dream of using under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:NONFREE delineates when one can reasonably expect someone to upload a free photo and when one cannot. Dead people are presumed to have no nonfree photos existing until someone finds or uploads a free photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said when you challenged me to this on my talk page, foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy #3 says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ... ." We can reasonably expect someone to upload a free photo even if that free photo does not exist right now, today. It is not my job to produce a free photo in order to get rid of a non-free one. Nor is it ever my job to produce a free photo in order to get id of one that is a flagrant copyright violation and for which nobody in the real world (ie, adults outside of Wikipedia) would ever even dream of using under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're wrong. But even if you weren't, why in God's name would you want to use this image instead of a vastly superior image from NC State's media guide? Also, there are numerous images on flickr so we certainly have a reasonable expectation that someone there would be willing to release one under a free license ... or if not someone there, that someone who attended the hundreds of games that Yow coached would be willing to release one. Kay Yow was a public figure and a gracious plenty pictures were taken of her. Her photo is more replaceable than ones of most living people. --B (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our non-free content criteria IS our guideline on which images are acceptable and which images are not. We can and will continue to justifiably use AP photos under our non-free content criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because our non-free content criteria says it doesn't make it true. You can't use an AP photo under a claim of fair use (unless your purpose is to comment on the photo itself. Just think about it for a minute and quit assuming that Wikipedia policies are under divine inspiration. --B (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice. We have no right to freely use AP content like this. Also, Kay Yow was a public person that have been photographed professionally and informally a thousand of times. Some effort should be done to uncover some freely licensed/licensable picture of her, instead of blatantly ignoring Associated Press market strategy. --Damiens.rf 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damiens and B: Dead people are presumed to have no free photographs available. We should assume that no free photos exist until a free photo is found or uploaded. Also, I checked Flickr. I found two images from "Gallery 2 Images," both copyrighted. I am not confident that Gallery 2 Images will be willing to relicense its photos. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there were a presumption that no free photo exists, there is still cause reasonably expect that we could receive one. (See foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy) Unlike most dead people, Kay yow was a public figure. She coached in hundreds of basketball games throughout her career. Thousands of people have taken pictures of her over the years with no intention of exploiting them commercially. While we can't reasonably expect a commercial content provider to ever give us a free image, we can reasonably expect a fan to. Again, I don't need to show that it exists, only that it can reasonably be expected to exist at some point in the future. Actually, I don't even need to show that - WP:NFCC says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof." The burden is on you to show that it is not possible to obtain one and I have suggested a very simple way - email everyone on flickr who has uploaded a photo of her and ask them to provide one to us under the GFDL or another acceptable license. --B (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WhisperToMe you're completly mistaken in your lack of dedication to the project mission. It's absolutely possible to produce a free image of a dead person: You just talk to some photographer owing a photo (taken preferably before the subject's death) and ask him to release the photo under a free licensing. If you think this is unreasonable, please go argue with this Wales guy or go contribute to some other project, thank you good bye. --Damiens.rf 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. You mean "in your dedication to the project," yes? I am dedicated to Wikipedia and will continue to edit.
- 2. So when should one reasonably expect to receive a free photo? When should we give up and assume that one does not exist? With recent figures, usually a free image has already been placed before the subject died, or a free image could be reasonably found. In many of these cases the figure died in a previous era, or there are not very many free photos available. I read the link and Jimbo resolved it by going to Flickr and asking someone to relicense a photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with non-press agency photo - As per Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am working on getting a free image from Flickr by asking the author of one photo to relicense his photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with that. One could not be obtained as recently as 10 weeks ago. Apparently no one is bothering to read the previous Kay Yow.jpg FfD from 2 June 2009, so I'll repeat again what I said there, noting that the press agency guideline regarding non-free use: "applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos" ... this 2007 photo of a dead person is from AP's archives – not a contemporary news event. NFC is a guideline subject to common sense exceptions based on the spirit of the policy, NFCC, which does provide for "judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia ... used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". This thumb-size photo was cropped from a much larger photo of several panelists, including Yow, at a cancer symposium in 2007. It is really a stretch to contend that fair use of such a greatly reduced, cropped image diminishes the commercial value to the copyright-holder in the slightest. JGHowes talk 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did anyone try to obtain one 10 weeks ago? Frankly, I disagree with one thing Jimbo said in the link Damiens posted above - he said that Carnildo was incorrect to unilaterally delete the image in question there rather than to go through the motions of a discussion. I don't agree with that and I wonder if Jimbo himself agrees with it or if he's just saying the politically correct thing to not tick off the myspacers. We should codify it in policy in big bold letters that say if you upload a press photo from the recent past that isn't iconic (eg Falling man), it will be deleted on the spot. Diminishing the commercial value of a work is about more than just obsoleting it. In fact, in the case of a press photo, it has little to do with obsoleting it. AP and Getty make their money selling the right to incorporate their work in some other work - you buy an AP photo because you want to use it in your news article, as opposed to a song, which you buy because you want to listen to it. So the fact that we are hosting the image here doesn't hurt AP's bottom line - it's the fact that we are using it in an article, without paying for it. They have a right to charge royalties to Wikipedia and our downstream commercial mirror sites. We are depriving them of that right. That's how it affects the commercial value. In two cases - Rogers v. Koons and Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group - the SCT ruled that a use of a copyrighted work was infringement, even though the copyright holder had never conceived of marketing their work in that way and even though it did not actually compete with their existing marketing efforts. Another of our articles to read is Transformation (law). The question is, does our use of the copyrighted work add something to it or not? If we have some sort of commentary on the photo or if we are parodying it, then that's a transformative use. If not, it's non-transformative and more likely to be considered infringement. --B (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with that. One could not be obtained as recently as 10 weeks ago. Apparently no one is bothering to read the previous Kay Yow.jpg FfD from 2 June 2009, so I'll repeat again what I said there, noting that the press agency guideline regarding non-free use: "applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos" ... this 2007 photo of a dead person is from AP's archives – not a contemporary news event. NFC is a guideline subject to common sense exceptions based on the spirit of the policy, NFCC, which does provide for "judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia ... used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". This thumb-size photo was cropped from a much larger photo of several panelists, including Yow, at a cancer symposium in 2007. It is really a stretch to contend that fair use of such a greatly reduced, cropped image diminishes the commercial value to the copyright-holder in the slightest. JGHowes talk 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am working on getting a free image from Flickr by asking the author of one photo to relicense his photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damiens and B: Dead people are presumed to have no free photographs available. We should assume that no free photos exist until a free photo is found or uploaded. Also, I checked Flickr. I found two images from "Gallery 2 Images," both copyrighted. I am not confident that Gallery 2 Images will be willing to relicense its photos. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but only because the image fails WP:NFCC#7. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will this discussion end before it's deleted as an orphan? Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was not orphaned until yesterday afternoon, when Damiens.rf peremptorily removed it from the Kay Yow article's infobox in the midst of this FfD discussion. JGHowes talk 14:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored it: instead of removing files listed here, we should use deleteableimage caption if we want to use anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A free image of Kay Yow now exists: File:KayYowSutton.jpg - Because of that the previous copyrighted image lost its fair use rationale and can be speedied now. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have speedily deleted File:Kay Yow.jpg as the image has been replaced by the Flickr image uploaded. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored it: instead of removing files listed here, we should use deleteableimage caption if we want to use anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was not orphaned until yesterday afternoon, when Damiens.rf peremptorily removed it from the Kay Yow article's infobox in the midst of this FfD discussion. JGHowes talk 14:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will this discussion end before it's deleted as an orphan? Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PlatanoBulva.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Franklin.vp (notify | contribs).
- No conceivable encyclopedic purpose, only used for disruption and/or immature entertainment. Sandstein 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look. The picture is just one of two bananas and a napkin. It clearly suggests the shape of a vulva but not for this has an obscene meaning or intension. I am not a photographer but those friends that are liked it and find it interesting. I thought that people would like it also here. There is a difference between some "immature entertainment" and a simple suggestive depiction of fruits that combines the elements of food presentation (photography in this case) and erotic or sensual art in a way that is teasing and attractive, in view and meaning. This is achieved by the superposition of the planes in which the content of the photography is at the same time tasty (as food) and attractive as a feminine shape. For centuries many fruits have been used as allegories of sexual elements and suggestive compositions have been used by both chefs and photographers to enhance its view and make them more attractive. I have been keeping re-posting it because always the comments have been of this kind "stupid", "useless", "immature" which are in themselves either immature or which come with the predisposition that I'm posting it to annoy or something and don't really giving serious reasons for its deletion. I really don't loose anything if it gets deleted. I and my friends can still enjoy it. I just wanted to give you a chance to think again if the picture really, by itself, is inappropriate. If people really think so go ahead and delete it. I won't post it anymore. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not free webhosting for things made up in school one day. There are plenty of outlets on the internet for your humorous creation; Wikipedia articles are not among them. --B (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all the pictures in all of wikipedia were done by persons. All are personal creations in a way and it is convenient, for copyright issues, when the uploader is the author. That article of wikipedia (food photography) is about photography and it is lacking of some pictures. This kind of presentation of food it is used sometimes. It just seems to be that people get scared when sexual references are made in art. It just came to my mind the painting of Michelangelo of Leda and the Swan. It has an explicit sexual intercourse depiction of a person and an animal. Of course I am not Michelangelo. I just wanted move the judgment of people away from the fact that there is a vulva (an allegory) in the picture. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Photographs placed on Wikipedia are meant to illustrate and enhance the content of articles. There is no content in that Food photography article which in any way relates to this image. It is true that arrangements of food have often been used in photography and painting to depict or suggest something more than simply the food, but that subject would probably be off-topic for that article. Meowy 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I posted it I though it fitted the content of the section "Food stylist" from the article (food photography). What do you think? Maybe it is not. OK, I give up. I'll try to make a some other pictures for this article in a more conventional way, with the white background and drops of water. No more discussion, I think I am convinced. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Photographs placed on Wikipedia are meant to illustrate and enhance the content of articles. There is no content in that Food photography article which in any way relates to this image. It is true that arrangements of food have often been used in photography and painting to depict or suggest something more than simply the food, but that subject would probably be off-topic for that article. Meowy 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all the pictures in all of wikipedia were done by persons. All are personal creations in a way and it is convenient, for copyright issues, when the uploader is the author. That article of wikipedia (food photography) is about photography and it is lacking of some pictures. This kind of presentation of food it is used sometimes. It just seems to be that people get scared when sexual references are made in art. It just came to my mind the painting of Michelangelo of Leda and the Swan. It has an explicit sexual intercourse depiction of a person and an animal. Of course I am not Michelangelo. I just wanted move the judgment of people away from the fact that there is a vulva (an allegory) in the picture. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not free webhosting for things made up in school one day. There are plenty of outlets on the internet for your humorous creation; Wikipedia articles are not among them. --B (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in Commons. Represents a funny artwork, we should assume good faith. Brand[t] 12:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While uploading it to Commons is a decision anyone can make that is outside the scope of this discussion, I can't imagine it being wanted there either. --B (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! I thought there was a Delete and a Keep. I have a question: What is the copyright status of deleted images? Can someone point me to some wiki-page talking about this. Are deleted files completely deleted from the servers? What is the policy about that? Franklin.vp 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - Due to the consensus that this doesn't meet WP:NFCC#2. Killiondude (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Verlinsky1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
- News media photo of a person who died in 2009 being used only to show what he looks like. The use is flagrant copyright infringement - our use of the photo without paying royalties is stealing. If it were a legitimate "fair use" to use a photo like this without paying royalties, every news photographer would be out of a job because nobody would pay for their work any more - they would just claim fair use. B (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet all criteria for acceptable non-free use of this photograph. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- US copyright law trumps our non-free content criteria. Besides, even if it didn't, this use fails #2 - respect for commercial opportunities. The sole reason this photo was taken was to sell it to content providers like Wikipedia and our numerous downstream commercial uses. By using it without permission, we are robbing them of the thousands of dollars in royalties that they are rightly due for the use of this photo. By the way, I posted this on yesterday's IFD page, but I'll post it here too. There is a piece about Getty suing a gossip website that was using pictures of Brad Pitt's + Angelina Jolie's baby without permission is almost directly on point [7]. If you think that using a news media photo under a claim of fair use because they happen to have been fortunate enough to get a picture of something we want is acceptable, then that's a failure of Wikipedia. Were Wikipedia to get a c&d, the image would be removed immediately. Were we to for some inconceivable reason go to court (we wouldn't, we're not that stupid, but if it did happen) it would be the easiest copyright infringement case of all time. If you look up "copyright infringement" in the dictionary, this would be the example - it's not even worth arguing. --B (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- B, our nonfree guidelines are 100% in compliance with U.S. copyright law. If you want to dispute them, please send an e-mail to our legal advisor, Mike Godwin. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Godwin has said before that this kind of thing is not his purview. That's actually a very important stance for him to take, because if he (a Foundation employee) makes a ruling about what we can and cannot do, then the Foundation is potentially directly liable for a case of copyright infringement. But if he doesn't offer any opinion, no matter how obvious the answer is, then the Foundation is only a content host, not a content provider and liability is limited to Wikipedia users. In any event, I don't have an issue with our non-free content policy - I have an issue with inappropriately using that policy to attempt to justify uploading a news media photo. Heck, look at item #6 under the images section of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use. An example of an "unacceptable use" is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." Gee, that sounds familiar. --B (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand that Godwin has made statements on fair use of images before. Where does he say that it's not in his purview? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with non-press agency photo - As per Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WhisperToMe, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 10#Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers where he essentially says "don't come to me with these things". My own opinion as to his reasoning is what I said above - it creates liability for the Foundation. --B (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Godwin has said before that this kind of thing is not his purview. That's actually a very important stance for him to take, because if he (a Foundation employee) makes a ruling about what we can and cannot do, then the Foundation is potentially directly liable for a case of copyright infringement. But if he doesn't offer any opinion, no matter how obvious the answer is, then the Foundation is only a content host, not a content provider and liability is limited to Wikipedia users. In any event, I don't have an issue with our non-free content policy - I have an issue with inappropriately using that policy to attempt to justify uploading a news media photo. Heck, look at item #6 under the images section of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use. An example of an "unacceptable use" is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." Gee, that sounds familiar. --B (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- B, our nonfree guidelines are 100% in compliance with U.S. copyright law. If you want to dispute them, please send an e-mail to our legal advisor, Mike Godwin. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- US copyright law trumps our non-free content criteria. Besides, even if it didn't, this use fails #2 - respect for commercial opportunities. The sole reason this photo was taken was to sell it to content providers like Wikipedia and our numerous downstream commercial uses. By using it without permission, we are robbing them of the thousands of dollars in royalties that they are rightly due for the use of this photo. By the way, I posted this on yesterday's IFD page, but I'll post it here too. There is a piece about Getty suing a gossip website that was using pictures of Brad Pitt's + Angelina Jolie's baby without permission is almost directly on point [7]. If you think that using a news media photo under a claim of fair use because they happen to have been fortunate enough to get a picture of something we want is acceptable, then that's a failure of Wikipedia. Were Wikipedia to get a c&d, the image would be removed immediately. Were we to for some inconceivable reason go to court (we wouldn't, we're not that stupid, but if it did happen) it would be the easiest copyright infringement case of all time. If you look up "copyright infringement" in the dictionary, this would be the example - it's not even worth arguing. --B (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use?
[edit]- Comment: Reading the actual copyright law the image seems to be an acceptable fair use photo. Being a low res photo for a non-profit encyclopedia with proper use and attribution seems to fit the fair use rules. Can you be more specific about how a photo like this is a "flagrant copyright infringement" and outside the definition of fair use? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's not transformative, so we fail criterion 1. If our claim of "fair use" were accepted by the courts, it would result in there being no market whatsoever for the photo (anyone who wants to use it in their article about this person would just claim fair use and refuse to pay royalties), so we fail criterion #4. Something to read is this discussion at WT:CSD. Kat Walsh, a member of the Wikimedia Board, edited WP:CSD to say that G12 includes "photography from a stock photo seller (such as Getty Images or Corbis) or competing information provider". There was some disagreement with the rule not because there was any question about it - there wasn't - but because (1) enumerating all of the potential sources of press photos would be instruction creep and (2) sometimes news content providers make false claims of copyright. There really isn't any doubt here among people who know what they are talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is what it is - there's no fair use justification here. Too many people on Wikipedia get hung up on "replaceable" and think that, instead of replaceability being a bar to uploading certain images, it is instead permission to upload anything that they can't find an alternate for in 30 seconds of googling. But sometimes, the answer is, there is no photo we can legitimately use under a claim of fair use. Press agencies are suing bloggers left and right for using their content under a claim of "fair use". We may be able to get by with it because nobody wants the bad press of suing Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it legal any more than it's legal for me to speed because I don't get caught. --B (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement, "sometimes, the answer is, there is no photo we can legitimately use under a claim of fair use" is effectively redefining the "fair use" doctrine. Even Obama couldn't make a statement like that. My understanding of "fair use" is that it is an absolute "limitation" on the "rights" given by the laws of copyright to the copyright holder. The law in effect is giving the holder "protection" of their work within limits, one of those being they must allow "fair use" of their copy within the guidelines.
- Sure, it's not transformative, so we fail criterion 1. If our claim of "fair use" were accepted by the courts, it would result in there being no market whatsoever for the photo (anyone who wants to use it in their article about this person would just claim fair use and refuse to pay royalties), so we fail criterion #4. Something to read is this discussion at WT:CSD. Kat Walsh, a member of the Wikimedia Board, edited WP:CSD to say that G12 includes "photography from a stock photo seller (such as Getty Images or Corbis) or competing information provider". There was some disagreement with the rule not because there was any question about it - there wasn't - but because (1) enumerating all of the potential sources of press photos would be instruction creep and (2) sometimes news content providers make false claims of copyright. There really isn't any doubt here among people who know what they are talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is what it is - there's no fair use justification here. Too many people on Wikipedia get hung up on "replaceable" and think that, instead of replaceability being a bar to uploading certain images, it is instead permission to upload anything that they can't find an alternate for in 30 seconds of googling. But sometimes, the answer is, there is no photo we can legitimately use under a claim of fair use. Press agencies are suing bloggers left and right for using their content under a claim of "fair use". We may be able to get by with it because nobody wants the bad press of suing Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it legal any more than it's legal for me to speed because I don't get caught. --B (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Their first rule is that "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." That covers your other statement, "anyone who wants to use it in their article about this person would just claim fair use and refuse to pay royalties" (not anyone can claim "fair use.") The other three key rules must also be followed, but this one is most important. It's as if Congress is saying to the photographer, "OK, Mr. photographer, we'll give you legal protection for your artistic creation, and allow you to sue in court anyone who tries to profit from your work, and even collect damages, but you must allow educational, research, and scholarly uses of your creation to entities like Wikipedia when they attribute you as the source and state a "fair use" rationale that complies with the other rules."
- You might also be interested to know that a claim of "fair use" by a user, when the four basic conditions are reasonably met, pretty much will stop dead any court action by a plaintiff. What happens is that the burden of proof of infringement shifts to the plaintiff to prove that there was no "fair use." The plaintiff is also required to contact the user first with their dispute rationale and the user can choose to remove the published copy without going to court and without any risk of penalty. When the rules are reasonably followed, a "fair use" defense is very hard to overcome by a copyright holder since the court can only follow the wishes of Congress in their desire to permit "fair use" of intellectual property. It's a major condition for granting someone a copyright. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more to the purpose and character of use than whether or not we are a non-profit organization - there's no conceivable way that congress's intention was to say that copyright laws don't apply to non-profits. Besides, Wikipedia has countless commercial mirrors and forks that make use of our content. They would not be covered by any such condition. While of course you are right to say that fair use is an absolute limitation and that anything can be used under a claim of fair use if it meets the tests, that doesn't mean that we would be the ones doing it. If we were writing an article about the news media photo itself, obviously, fair use would apply and then we can use that. But for 99.99999% of news media articles ever taken, we are not going to have any inkling of having an article about them because there would not be reliable secondary sources of information about the photo itself. --B (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this discussion is a loose one, but since you made some definitive statements that may be wrong, I don't think they should be left as is. A few of your statements and comments:
- "there's no conceivable way that congress's intention was to say that copyright laws don't apply to non-profits." Of course not. But they have a special place and additional rights within the law - especially when it comes to "fair use."
- "Wikipedia has countless commercial mirrors and forks that make use of our content." The right of "fair use" does not carry over to anyone but the person or organization that claims it. Nor is there any liability as a result of a later user's infringement. The copyright law has numerous statements that makes each user clearly separate so that all linkage is stopped. Basically, if any "fair use" intellectual property is copied and reproduced by a "for-profit" organization, the "fair use" privelege does not carry over and that user cannot use in its defense the "fair use" source.
- It's also worth mentioning that at least in my opinion it's not constructive, and may even be destructive, to label every innocent attempt to add a "fair use" item by calling it a "flagrant copyright infringement" and "stealing" that could make Wikipedia liable for massive financial costs. The House or Representatives wrote in a published report:
- "The judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well-established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be given express statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. The claim that a defendant’s acts constituted a fair use rather than an infringement has been raised as a defense in innumerable copyright actions over the years, and there is ample case law recognizing the existence of the doctrine and applying it."
- As for liability, seeing how Wiki's published guidelines for non-free use are spelled out and enforced, and how they restate the "fair use" laws verbatim, the following HR statement should alleviate any excess fears:
- "Section 504 (c) (2) provides that, where such a person or institution infringes copyrighted material in the honest belief that what they were doing constituted fair use, the court is precluded from awarding any statutory damages. It is intended that, in cases involving this provision, the burden of proof with respect to the defendant’s good faith should rest on the plaintiff."
- Some other references: Copyright Office report on Fair Use. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if, legally, we could use this image, our own guidelines say that generally we cannot use news agency images unless the images themselves are being discussed in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this discussion is a loose one, but since you made some definitive statements that may be wrong, I don't think they should be left as is. A few of your statements and comments:
- There's more to the purpose and character of use than whether or not we are a non-profit organization - there's no conceivable way that congress's intention was to say that copyright laws don't apply to non-profits. Besides, Wikipedia has countless commercial mirrors and forks that make use of our content. They would not be covered by any such condition. While of course you are right to say that fair use is an absolute limitation and that anything can be used under a claim of fair use if it meets the tests, that doesn't mean that we would be the ones doing it. If we were writing an article about the news media photo itself, obviously, fair use would apply and then we can use that. But for 99.99999% of news media articles ever taken, we are not going to have any inkling of having an article about them because there would not be reliable secondary sources of information about the photo itself. --B (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#2 by interfering with market opportunities for this photo of a notable person. It is highly likely that a freely-licensed photo can be located, or an existing photo can be obtained under a free license. The AP has specifically indicated to us in the past that it does not consider our use of its images to be fair use. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to that? That should probably be linked to from the guideline. --B (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I remember someone told me it was on an OTRS ticket. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to that? That should probably be linked to from the guideline. --B (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in this case the "fair use" argument is just a excuse to justify the theft of someone's property. The article would loose none of its "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" aspects by the removal of the photograph, so the photograph is not really being used for those purposes and so its "fair use" status is not valid. Meowy 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with non-press agency photo: Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use has in its unacceptable list: 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-free press agency photo violates WP:NFCC#2. +Angr 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:M56857qfmrt copy.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fribbulus Xax (notify | contribs).
- Non-free file which has been superceded by File:SensibleShoes.png Fribbulus Xax (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted: you're the uploader, so obviously the uploader has requested deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: deleted, commonsbleed --B (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Harry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Babee sazi (notify | contribs).
- No description, current version seems to be a vanity image; not used anywhere, possible copyright violation (watermarks on current image, unsubstantiated claims of copyright on previous unrelated versions), and lastly, a file with the same name exists on commons and needs to be used in Harry Norton Schofield article. 194.80.229.244 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at the upload history, that statement refers to an old version of the file. We can/should delete the current revision as an obvious copyright violation. The previous version (the one that statement refers to) is a photo of Harry Worth (or, at least, the user added it to that article immediately after uploading it). Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying that statement either ... the user is not a regular user and have not provided enough information to contact him/her and confirm the license. Assuming this is deleted, the title needs to be salted. --B (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not an obvious copyright violation, because it's always been asserted to have been owned by the uploader. However, this is missing evidence of that ownership, so effectively this is missing evidence of permission. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep Killiondude (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The lorax (notify | contribs).
- This non-free screenshot shows a frame of an incident briefly mentioned on two of the three articles it's used in (this and this). In the third article, the discussion of the incident is clear enough no to need the help of a decorative illustration of a couch-jumping Tom Cruise, and could go without this image. Damiens.rf 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A highly notable moment in the life of Tom Cruise, arguably the tipping point for Cruise's plunge in "Q score" rating. This low-resolution image meets all requirements of WP:NFCC.--The lorax (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NFCC, awesome moment Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This surely overrides our policies. --Damiens.rf 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove from everywhere but Tom Cruise - In Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, it is mentioned only in passing. In The Oprah Winfrey Show, it is one item in a bullet list of "famous moments". But it does seem pretty central to Tom Cruise. --B (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly in Tom Cruise you find hard to grasp without seeing this screenshot? (the "event" may be arguably "central" to the article, but it doesn't follows our readers need illustrations to understand it) --Damiens.rf 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's photographic proof of the man's socio-emotional breakdown. That's worth 500px, at least. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you we don't need a picture of a sofa-jumping Cruise to discuss such psycho-anthropological themes. There's was nothing visually special about his (non-unique) sofa-jumping style that would reflect his inner emotions and existential frustrations. --Damiens.rf 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now let's be honest, this was a particularly bizarre talk show moment that has helped shape subsequent opinion about him.--The lorax (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for the article not to mention this moment. I'm just disputing the bizarre idea that the reader needs to see this screenshot to understand what happened. --Damiens.rf 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A picture is worth a thousand words. The description is surreal without a picture to back it up. Further, this would seem to fall under Fair Use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.232.226 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there is no way a free-use photo could have been made of this particular moment as cameras are not allowed in Oprah's studio audience.--The lorax (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, MAJOR MEME. That must count for something. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there is no way a free-use photo could have been made of this particular moment as cameras are not allowed in Oprah's studio audience.--The lorax (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A picture is worth a thousand words. The description is surreal without a picture to back it up. Further, this would seem to fall under Fair Use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.232.226 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for the article not to mention this moment. I'm just disputing the bizarre idea that the reader needs to see this screenshot to understand what happened. --Damiens.rf 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now let's be honest, this was a particularly bizarre talk show moment that has helped shape subsequent opinion about him.--The lorax (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This moment has become ingrained in popular culture and in the public opinion of Cruise which carries weight as he is a mega movie star as of 2009. Therefore I believe it would be irresponsible to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.163.73 (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep dont let scientologists bully us into deleting this unique historic moment in which Tom was exposed in his wholesomeness. Bad faith nomination by the scientologist faithful known for their bullying on behalf of powerful who use this "religion" to censor, and get their dirty work done for the benefit of the few, and regardless of the misery of millions. Do not tolerate this abuse! 213.198.217.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Let's keep this one up there. It's iconic, it's cultural, it complements the article nicely and it aids in understanding. It's part of the man's life and an important part of the public perception thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.45.3 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think the description of the moment gains a lot with this image. I didn't know about this and where I was reading it I imagined in my mind the classic declaration of love with one hand on the chest the other to the front like directing the words and the chin lifted. Quite different when I saw the picture. It looks bizarre. It think it helps to shape, emotionally the moment. Franklin.vp 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: not deleted --B (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source information is not verifiable. It's said to be a pic taken by some Mr. Thomas Lethbridge's camera, but it could well have said anyone else if no evidence is to be provided. Damiens.rf 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting without prejudice, this one was originally from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 13, but the uploader (an active Wikipedian with edits as recently as today) was not notified. Asking him for more information would be preferable to just deleting it outright. --B (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grace was my great aunt, my father's aunt, Sydney Thomas was my great grandfather. Let me know how else I can help "prove" this MrMarmite (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't worry to prove any of this since your familiar affairs are irrelevant to the question. --Damiens.rf 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Killiondude (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Achidiac.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cafejunkie (notify | contribs).
- The summary doesn't sound like a free license. "Anthony Chidiac profile pic - from Chidiac, approved for publication by subject under a CC licence. New image coming from (Getty Images) once approved by subject will replace this image. This is likely a temporary image of subject until new one released via press." It doesn't sound like the copyright holder understands that a Creative Commons license is perpetual and irrevocable. Nor is it very likely that an image from Getty Images would be released under a license suitable to our needs. The communications the uploader had with the copyright holder need to be forwarded to OTRS so that they can ensure the licensing information accurately reflects the intentions of the copyright holder. B (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B, thankyou for raising this issue. Have uploaded a free use photo which is also published on IMDB. Free use. No restrictions. Thankyou for highlighting this - Gettys images would likely present a problem - but was temporary. OK to delete former image as per your observation. Again, thanks for highlighting this potential problem - I have addressed it :) Cafejunkie (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free screenshot from a Fox Sports broadcast of a football game that serves no purpose other than to show what the official depicted therein looks like. It doesn't even do a very good job at that ... it's zoomed pretty far out and the video is badly pixellated. B (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1984 NBA Finals referees.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RyguyMN (notify | contribs).
- Decorative use of a screenshot from a CBS Sports broadcast. This article has four non-free photos of the person. This one really adds nothing and given how unencyclopedic an old screenshot is, this one seems like a good candidate to get rid of. B (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can't see how this benefits the article at all — there's no way that its use can't be excessive. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2009 (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.