Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 30

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 30)
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30 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:

CSI Miami character publicity images edit

CSI Miami publicity images nominated for same reason as CSI images, appear to be publicity not screenshots, better suited to be replaced with screen shots per past discussions. Ejfetters 00:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Query I assume you've raised this with Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise. Did they agree with your view? Were they aware of the past discussions you refer to? Could you please link us to them?—DCGeist 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have followed the guidelines listed for whom to contact and what to do. I listed the files all here, all the files have been tagged for deletion as listed as well, all the captions of the images' uses have been subsequently tagged as well. The uploaders of the files have been notified that their images have been listed for deletion, and instructed in the notification how to comment on the nominations. I have not discussed the nomination with any other groups, or gotten any other views before nominating, its not necessary and didn't see where it was required. The conversations that I am referencing are here, here, here, and here. Hope this helps. Ejfetters 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the images, I will concede that most of them are promotional images, but when I uploaded them I specifically got a screenshot of the character for Image:FrankTripp.jpg because I could not find an image similar to the others to use. In other words, Image:FrankTripp.jpg IS a screenshot. Editus Reloaded 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrankTripp image kept, the others were deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Johngreen.jpg edit

Image:Johngreen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 4sarad (notify | contribs).
  • Appears to be a promotional photo, not released into the public domain as the uploader claims. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI NY character publicity images edit

CSI NY images, appear to be publicity images of characters, with no clear permission to be used here for promotion, discussed at length with Star Trek Dawson's Creek and Soap Opera characters, and decision was to deleted them and replace with better buited screen caps. Ejfetters 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Query Just as above: Assuming you've raised this with Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise, How did they respond? Were they aware of the past discussions you refer to? Could you please link us to them? Thanks.—DCGeist 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above CSI Miami photo section Ejfetters 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:TCM Underground Rob Zombie.jpg edit

Image:TCM Underground Rob Zombie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DoctorWho42 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use publicity image, not strictly said released for promotional uses as such, replaceable with a screen cap of the television series - similar to the discussions of publicity images from Star Trek, Dawson's Creek, etc. which were removed and replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way words cannotEjfetters 05:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
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:

Image:Halloween2.jpg edit

Image:Halloween2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bignole (notify | contribs).
  • Studio publicity non-free image, not screencap from film. Source appears to be a fansite, original source of image is not listed. Copyright status is theorized, as to holder, status, etc. Better suited with a fair use screen capture like done on the Halloween article itself several times. Ejfetters 06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's reverted back to the screenshot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Alientraveller 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it has been reverted to a screen cap, I withdraw my nomination Ejfetters 12:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Halloween Curtis.jpg edit

Image:Halloween Curtis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmoon1 (notify | contribs).
  • Same, image is claimed as a publicity image released by the company. no documentation provided it has been released as promotional, and original copyright seem theorized, no actual original source is known, so would be the copyright. Better replaced with a screen cap that the source and copyright would be known. Ejfetters 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The image does have a source. — Enter Movie 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But as stated for the Halloween B&W image above, do you have the correct copyright holder? That was replaced with a better suited screen cap from the film, with the copyright holder known, as this would also be the same. Ejfetters 03:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TribalCMS 5.0.3 in Action.jpg edit

Image:TribalCMS 5.0.3 in Action.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wilkesalex (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned screenshot of copyrighted software; originally used in currently SALTed article. east.718 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue Ivan Crnojevic.jpg edit

Image:Statue Ivan Crnojevic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CrnaGora (notify | contribs).
  • not "NoRightsReserved" - site explicitly states "all right reserved"; image of a statue that is publicly displayed Branislav Jovanovic 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karte Wesselburen in Deutschland.JPG edit

Image:Karte Wesselburen in Deutschland.JPGdelete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karynhuntting (notify | contribs).

Image:SaoirseRonan2007.jpg edit

Image:SaoirseRonan2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Glimmerless (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image, possibly copyrighted; found on various fansites- María (críticame) 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:03-28-06 1315.jpg edit

Image:03-28-06 1315.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cholga (notify | contribs).
  • Looks like a test upload, taken from a Motorola Cameraphone, the uploader has left it looking like garbage. And name is not descriptive. No idea what it is. Possibly a train station? Dreamy \*/!$! 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Moving this IFD to Oct 3 for further discussion. -Nv8200p talk 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels family pictures edit

Image:Magda.jpg
Image:Goebbels02.jpg
Image:Goebbels-family.jpg
Image:Haraldquandt.jpg
Image:Helga.JPG
Image:Hilde.JPG
Image:Helmut.JPG
Image:Holde.JPG
Image:Hedwig.JPG
Image:Heide.JPG
Image:Goebbels.jpg
Image:Helmut-Goebbels.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videmus Omnia (talk • contribs) 16:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the source the images were taken from is given, including the exact page numbers. The fact the uploader can't swear that the book publisher/author is the copyright holder is just a sign that he's being overcautious himself...certainly not ground to delete them. This isn't really related to WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable images example #9, "an image with an unknown or unverifiable origin" either, which is more aimed at "I found this image of Britney Spears on google!".Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if the uploader isn't sure that the book author is the copyright holder, they do violate NFCC#10a and counterexample 9, which applies equally to all images of uncertain provenance, not just modern pop culture ones. —Angr 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The book author is dead, the publisher (Nelson Paperbacks) is defunct, the subjects of the photographs are dead, the probable copyright holder of the photographs Joseph Goebbels died with no living heirs, there are no free equivalents, they illustrate biographical articles. They comply entirely with WP:FAIR USE and if they are deleted ALL WP:FAIR USE images should also be deleted and policy should specify that WP:FAIR USE is not acceptable. --Zeraeph 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probable copyright holder. Have a reference that says he is the copyright holder? Ejfetters 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
    • Apparently Magda Goebbels has living descendants, through Harald Quandt. No way of knowing who they are or who holds the copyrights via the given information, though. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per fair use - no free equivalents to demonstrate the subject matter they are describing. --Strothra 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair use requires a lot more than nonreplaceability. If we don't know who the copyright holder of these images is, we can't use them, no matter how nonreplaceable they are. —Angr 14:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These pictures are important so that the reader can get a full and balanced picture of what happened in the final days of WW2. --Delos 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is one of those cases where deletion must be a desperate, absolutely last consideration. The editor who noted that images of Goebbels were hard to find was absolutely right: they're damn near impossible, and there are zero free content images of him. At one point I went on a search and found the same result. This is the kind of thing that fair use is meant for! Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:ETBuckleUP.jpg edit

Image:ETBuckleUP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abdulmakesfonts (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, low quality, unclear encyclopedic value. —Angr 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carr brothers.jpg edit

Image:Carr brothers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J.R. Hercules (notify | contribs).
  • This is a derivate work of mugshots posted on a CourtTV website (the image still bears their watermark). I've been trying to work with the uploader to establish a verifiable copyright holder for the image (see this, this, and this on my talk page), but it looks like there's no way to verify the copyright holder of these images per WP:NFCC#10a. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.jpg edit

Image:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chesspieceface (notify | contribs).
  • This is the second nomination for this image - the first discussion can be found here. That discussion, which closed with "no consensus", focused on WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#2 in that it competed with an identical usage by the claimed copyright holder at that time, Turner Broadcasting. The debate closed after User:Haemo produced a source that the Associated Press actually claimed copyright on the photo (though some feel this may be a bogus claim). It seems likely that Turner got the image from the AP, see para 6.B. on this page. Since that debate, I ran across the letter from the AP at Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, where the AP disputes our fair use of their images; I think that makes a reconsideration worthwhile in regards to WP:NFCC#2. If the AP's claim is in fact bogus (i.e. they didn't purchase rights to the image from somebody), then this places us into WP:NFCC#10a territory, unknown/unverifiable copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AP's claim is blanket knee-jerk boilerplate, and shouldn't affect how we use the image. If they want to actually dispute the claim, they can do it through normal legal channels — but a blanket "all of our images can't be fair use" assertion is clearly just a protective and badgering gesture on their part. An image which claims copyright to them in an encyclopedic context cannot possibly reduce the commercial viability of their current image, especially given that they license said image to numerous online news services. --Haemo 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: harming commerciality - for the most part the AP sets up agreements with newspapers that creates a collective pool of material for its members. For example, as the Spokesman-Review newspaper is in the AP, it agrees that if it makes a noteworthy national article or picture, everyone else who paid for the AP agreement can use it. The AP has offices that creates original content, but being "in the AP" also means your material can go national to everyone else "in the AP". And yeah they sue if you're not a member and use their stuff. Point is, Wikipedia is NOT a member of the AP (perhaps it should be). So fair use needs to be vigorously fair as otherwise why should all these papers pay to be in the AP if other people are freely stealing it? -- Guroadrunner 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (not associated with the AP)[reply]
      • That's why fair use exists; so non-commercial entities, like Wikipedia, can use copyrighted information without requiring membership in exclusive organizations, or paying onerous fees. It's clear what the AP's interest in claiming blanket protections on all their content is, and it's just as clear that unless they want to make an actual challenge that they're just blowing smoke. Companies of all stripes do this, since it's easy to say and doesn't require any action of their part; nothing to lose, lots to gain. --Haemo 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your point; however, Wikipedia's policy is more strict than fair use as defined by law, hence WP:NFCC#2. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but I tend to believe that they're full of hot air. They don't seriously believe that fair use of all their images infringes on the commercial use of their products — after all, how could it? They distribute these images to all their member affiliates, and they are a mouse-click away from being downloaded at any of them. Wikipedia's use doesn't make their images any less valuable, since we are not competing with how they use the image commercially. --Haemo 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • True that it offers things to its member affiliates. Wikipedia is not a member affiliate. Just 'cause NFL football games are on TV for millions to watch doesn't mean you can spread it around legally, same with music. I don't understand your argument that anything from the AP (or other sources) does not need to be under fair use despite being widely available? Wikinews is a competitor in the field of media, and when it uses non-free images, that still affects the market. Guroadrunner 02:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am arguing it's under fair use. I'm also arguing that it meets our content guidelines. I thought that was clear? We're talking about WP:NFCC#2, which is about commercial rivalry. --Haemo 03:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think the wording of "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." in WP:NFCC#2 is fairly within the scope that using news images fails fair use, especially with Wikinews, as that is a competitor for eyeballs. Guroadrunner 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But this isn't Wikinews? --Haemo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is an AP image, then it fails WP:NFCC#2. However, it's unlikely to be an AP image: they were nobodies before their death, so why would the AP take a picture of them? It's far more likely to be an amateur snapshot in the possession of one of the families that the AP was given permission to use. In that case, unless we can find out who the photographer/copyright holder is, it fails WP:NFCC#10. —Angr 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that it was unlikely the AP took this photo. However, it is possible that the AP purchased rights to this image (as they sometimes do from freelance photographers), or that it was given to the AP under free license, and the AP re-copyrighted it prior to distro (which would be their right). I think this a case of being Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea; it fails either #2 or #10a, without any middle ground between the two. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. AP claims copyright, and we have no reason to think that they aren't the copyright-holder (having purchased the copyright from the photographer). We can't use AP images except in a few very limited circumstances, per policy and Jimbo. If the AP does not hold copyright, then the source is unknown. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Martiniopolis.jpg edit

Image:Martiniopolis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michaelzhang96 (notify | contribs).

Image:CCI.jpg edit

Image:CCI.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Haseo9999 (notify | contribs).
  • I got this off of the school's website at [1]. I am working on getting an image for fair use. The current image is not of fair use, as I asked on Wikipedia Media copyright questions. The image was going to be used for Centennial Collegiate. I deleted the image link from the article, so now it would also be classed as an Orphan image. Haseo9999 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FenderTeleSun.JPG edit

Image:FenderTeleSun.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FenderTele (notify | contribs).
  • Delete asap. This is an incorrectly positioned image with the same name as the correct version on commons. Until this is deleted, the correct version will not show up in articles. vlad§inger tlk 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_30&oldid=1142600065"