Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 12
March 12 edit
Image:Shannon_Kane.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Fpc.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Mglory_glass.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Shannon_Kane_tattoo.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Vitamins_minerals.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Alan_Kane.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Tammy_Kane.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Shannon_tattooing.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Realmscombat.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Shannon_Kane_toddler.jpg edit
- - uploaded by She that is here (notify | contribs).
Image:Sunil.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Sunil Parmar (notify | contribs).
Image:Me 01.jpeg edit
- - uploaded by Skullkid05 (notify | contribs).
Image: Framedselfportal.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Shannonkringen (notify | contribs).
Image: Genesis11.jpg edit
Image:Se7va.jpg edit
Image:Famous Armenians.png edit
- - uploaded by Aivazovsky (notify | contribs).
- This is a collation of free and unfree images with not-enough source information provided for the images used. As it's only used to illustrate "Armenians", a free alternative could be created- Abu badali (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hirohito2.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Axem Titanium (notify | contribs).
- Acording to source info provided, the image is from photo agency Corbis, a company on the business of licensing images. Using it goes against WP:FUC#2 (and may put Wikipedia in trouble) - Abu badali (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Predator_DNC_v7.gif edit
- - uploaded by Jabbassian (notify | contribs).
Image:Robin to Nightwing.jpg edit
- Apparent save and reload of Nightwing577gv.jpg: same image, size of the nominated image is that of the preview of the "original". Nominated image lacks sourcing (already tagged) and has yet to be placed in any articles. — J Greb 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mists.jpg edit
- - uploaded by DieWeibeRose (notify | contribs).
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 12:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:ICEE Mascot.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Dig Dug Guy (notify | contribs).
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 12:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, and therefore no fair use claim -- Selket Talk 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fountain in front of Garland Hall.jpg edit
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 12:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:EV-In.svg edit
Derivative work of Image:Evanescence.svg. ed g2s • talk 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is in pretty heavy use, especially through the userboxes. I'm not convinced this is infringing. Would it be better if this was moved to userspace? --Selket Talk 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's only being used as a decorative icons for templates. If the image is unfree then all the current uses are prohibited by WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the Evanescence logo is copyrightable (rather than merely a trademark), the EV-In.svg image simply doesn't copy anything of it that is copyrightable. It's merely reminiscient because it's a similar graphic style. Postdlf 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A user created de novo an image unlike, but reminiscent of, the Evanescence script, then licensed it under GFDL to improve the quality of wiki pages. Isn't this exactly what WP would like people to do? Gimmetrow 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's only being used as a decorative icons for templates. If the image is unfree then all the current uses are prohibited by WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- delete: Even if this image is not considered a derivative work (that I'm inclined to agree), what's the point of having a "user created logo"? --Abu badali (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- So should we delete all user-created content on wikipedia? Gimmetrow 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's just twisting his words, Gimmetrow. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the comment followed mine above at least in time, so that's the context of my response, and I am genuinely puzzled by the comment. As an analogy, if I made a little decorative image out of my favorite sports team's initials, and used that on a navigation template for the sports team, I would be rather puzzled if someone suggested deleting it because I had created the image independent of the sports team. Gimmetrow 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your analogy is irrelevant. He's not asking for deletion because you created the image independently... — Rebelguys2 talk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you could enlighten me. Gimmetrow 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Abu is wondering what this user-created image adds to our encyclopedia. It certainly doesn't add any encyclopedic value. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you could enlighten me. Gimmetrow 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your analogy is irrelevant. He's not asking for deletion because you created the image independently... — Rebelguys2 talk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the comment followed mine above at least in time, so that's the context of my response, and I am genuinely puzzled by the comment. As an analogy, if I made a little decorative image out of my favorite sports team's initials, and used that on a navigation template for the sports team, I would be rather puzzled if someone suggested deleting it because I had created the image independent of the sports team. Gimmetrow 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's just twisting his words, Gimmetrow. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think Abu badali is asking the right question—logos have informative value because they are used by a subject (a company, a band, etc.) to represent it or call it to mind, and can do so with very little content or context because of that subject's repeated self-identification. Of what value to Wikipedia is a logo that the subject does not actually use? Postdlf 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the same editor will not allow the actual logo to be used. So if we can't use a logo the band uses, and we can't use a logo the band doesn't use, what's left? Gimmetrow 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing. But it's not like the user-created logo had any encyclopedic value in the first place. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whether any image can be used is not really the point now, is it? Of what value to Wikipedia is a logo that the subject does not actually use? That rather makes it a fake logo, doesn't it? In which case I'd think it would be better not to use any graphic, and just use the name of the band in plain text rather than invent something and pretend like it's a real logo. Or am I wrong? Postdlf 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are so many issues here. First, that may very well be the solution chosen, however deleting the image is completely the wrong way to go about it. This is a decision for the editors of the articles in question, and as far as we can tell this is a free image and therefore can be used. Second, the only reason this is currently used in the template at all is because some editors were edit warring to remove the actual logo as invalid fair use, and I put this image in there so that the edit warring would stop. Gimmetrow 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, first, there was no justification for edit warring — fair use images are never used in templates. And, just because it's free, doesn't make it accurate or useful. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was a discussion underway. There was no reason to remove this image while it was under discussion, and in fact I asked that it not be removed while the discussion was underway. That rather polite request was not honoured, so I replaced the image with a free image for the purposes of the discussion. And it was still removed. Gimmetrow 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because fair use images haven't been allowed in templates for God knows how long. You make big changes after discussion. You don't make a big change — i.e., allowing fair use in the template namespace — and then expect expect others to have to discuss your challenge to long-standing, widely-agreed-upon consensus before reverting back. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- And that's why I substituted a non-fair use image, so the discussion about the issue could continue. Which has not happened in part because of this disruption. Gimmetrow 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? How so? Fair use images shouldn't be used in navigation boxes, though there can be a fair use argument for use elsewhere. Nobody's said anything more over there, because there isn't really anything more to say. It's not like you or anyone else has brought up any questions or points that haven't been answered or responded to. Besides, it's a topic that's been debated to death for months, perhaps years. If you'd like to bring Ed g2s's, mine, or anyone else's "disruptive" behavior to someone's attention, let me know and I can point you in the right direction. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to discuss a technique in the template which, to me, had the potential of being in compliance with FU#9. I don't dispute most people don't see it that way, but I've tried to bring this up before, but nobody has directly addressed the "includeonly" and namespace:0 technique. You're entirely welcome to say this is also not in compliance, but I've had great difficulty even explaining how it works without an actual example. So an opportunity presented itself. I did not consider it disruption until the free image itself was put up for IFD and the original uploader was not notified. Is simply asking this sort of question enough to make my past image uploads merit investigation? Gimmetrow 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The user wanted feedback about whether the image was too close to being a derivative work. I don't see it as disruption, but whatever works for you. Failing to notify the author certainly wasn't right, but it's better to call it to the nominator's attention as a possible mistake, rather than calling it disruption. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, where are we going to have the actual discussion, since you didn't respond here? Gimmetrow 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- What hasn't been answered yet? — Rebelguys2 talk 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, where are we going to have the actual discussion, since you didn't respond here? Gimmetrow 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The user wanted feedback about whether the image was too close to being a derivative work. I don't see it as disruption, but whatever works for you. Failing to notify the author certainly wasn't right, but it's better to call it to the nominator's attention as a possible mistake, rather than calling it disruption. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to discuss a technique in the template which, to me, had the potential of being in compliance with FU#9. I don't dispute most people don't see it that way, but I've tried to bring this up before, but nobody has directly addressed the "includeonly" and namespace:0 technique. You're entirely welcome to say this is also not in compliance, but I've had great difficulty even explaining how it works without an actual example. So an opportunity presented itself. I did not consider it disruption until the free image itself was put up for IFD and the original uploader was not notified. Is simply asking this sort of question enough to make my past image uploads merit investigation? Gimmetrow 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? How so? Fair use images shouldn't be used in navigation boxes, though there can be a fair use argument for use elsewhere. Nobody's said anything more over there, because there isn't really anything more to say. It's not like you or anyone else has brought up any questions or points that haven't been answered or responded to. Besides, it's a topic that's been debated to death for months, perhaps years. If you'd like to bring Ed g2s's, mine, or anyone else's "disruptive" behavior to someone's attention, let me know and I can point you in the right direction. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- And that's why I substituted a non-fair use image, so the discussion about the issue could continue. Which has not happened in part because of this disruption. Gimmetrow 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because fair use images haven't been allowed in templates for God knows how long. You make big changes after discussion. You don't make a big change — i.e., allowing fair use in the template namespace — and then expect expect others to have to discuss your challenge to long-standing, widely-agreed-upon consensus before reverting back. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was a discussion underway. There was no reason to remove this image while it was under discussion, and in fact I asked that it not be removed while the discussion was underway. That rather polite request was not honoured, so I replaced the image with a free image for the purposes of the discussion. And it was still removed. Gimmetrow 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, first, there was no justification for edit warring — fair use images are never used in templates. And, just because it's free, doesn't make it accurate or useful. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are so many issues here. First, that may very well be the solution chosen, however deleting the image is completely the wrong way to go about it. This is a decision for the editors of the articles in question, and as far as we can tell this is a free image and therefore can be used. Second, the only reason this is currently used in the template at all is because some editors were edit warring to remove the actual logo as invalid fair use, and I put this image in there so that the edit warring would stop. Gimmetrow 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the same editor will not allow the actual logo to be used. So if we can't use a logo the band uses, and we can't use a logo the band doesn't use, what's left? Gimmetrow 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- So should we delete all user-created content on wikipedia? Gimmetrow 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As mentioned above, while it takes elements of the copyrighted logo, it does not replicate any whole object that is copyrighted. This is simply a stylized "E" and "v". -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is used in userboxes, and there is no reason to delete it from those. Gimmetrow 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete.No encyclopedic value, as it's a fake and misleading logo. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- Why? As a user-box image, it doesn't have to have any more "encyclopedic" value than any other image used in userboxes. Gimmetrow 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's certainly not true. It's used in {{Evanescence}}, and therefore transcluded into the main Evanescence article. It looks pretty misleading to me. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarify: Remove from encyclopedic pages: the mainspace, templates used the mainspace, and the like. It's hardly accurate or useful. As for userboxes, if it's not a derivative work, it doesn't really matter, does it? — Rebelguys2 talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also don't see any reason why it can't be used in non-article space like userboxes. Using it in articles is problematic, however, because it's not genuine. Postdlf 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this time, it has been removed from all mainspace pages, due to it being taken off the Ev template. As for it not mattering because it isn't a derivative work, that doesn't at all make sense. What if I used a completely different typeface...would that change anything? Absolutely not. It still represents an idea, even if it is not directly taken from the logo. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- To say it is not a derivative is to say that it does not copy any copyrightable elements of another work that would have prevented the image from being freely licensed...because it can be freely licensed, this means that no copyright concerns or policies would bar it from being used in user space. Could you clarify the remainder of your comments? I don't know what "it still represents an idea" is supposed to mean, unless you are (wrongly) suggesting that ideas can be copyrighted. Postdlf 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not certain what was unclear, to be honest. By idea, I mean that while this image is not taken from the logo, it still serves the purpose of identification, as the abbreviation of "Ev" would in any font. This font was simply chosen because it bears a resemblance to that which was used in the official logo. I certainly am not implying that ideas can be copyrighted, exactly the opposite, in fact. I hope that clarifies my thoughts. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really understand, "As for it not mattering because it isn't a derivative work, that doesn't at all make sense." If it's not copyrightable, and it's not even a derivative work, why would there be any restriction on use in userboxes? — Rebelguys2 talk 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm saying! There wouldn't be any restrictions. That's exactly the reason I don't understand why this image was placed for deletion in the first place. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- (see my reasons below) I really don't know why it has been proposed for deletion. It does not affect anything! It's just an misc. graphics created by me, free-use image, used in the Ev WikiProject because it's forbidden the use of fair-use images. I don't use this graphic in the user page (like you use a photography of yourself on yours) and it isn't a logo (as many people have said). Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm saying! There wouldn't be any restrictions. That's exactly the reason I don't understand why this image was placed for deletion in the first place. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really understand, "As for it not mattering because it isn't a derivative work, that doesn't at all make sense." If it's not copyrightable, and it's not even a derivative work, why would there be any restriction on use in userboxes? — Rebelguys2 talk 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not certain what was unclear, to be honest. By idea, I mean that while this image is not taken from the logo, it still serves the purpose of identification, as the abbreviation of "Ev" would in any font. This font was simply chosen because it bears a resemblance to that which was used in the official logo. I certainly am not implying that ideas can be copyrighted, exactly the opposite, in fact. I hope that clarifies my thoughts. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- To say it is not a derivative is to say that it does not copy any copyrightable elements of another work that would have prevented the image from being freely licensed...because it can be freely licensed, this means that no copyright concerns or policies would bar it from being used in user space. Could you clarify the remainder of your comments? I don't know what "it still represents an idea" is supposed to mean, unless you are (wrongly) suggesting that ideas can be copyrighted. Postdlf 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarify: Remove from encyclopedic pages: the mainspace, templates used the mainspace, and the like. It's hardly accurate or useful. As for userboxes, if it's not a derivative work, it doesn't really matter, does it? — Rebelguys2 talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's certainly not true. It's used in {{Evanescence}}, and therefore transcluded into the main Evanescence article. It looks pretty misleading to me. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? As a user-box image, it doesn't have to have any more "encyclopedic" value than any other image used in userboxes. Gimmetrow 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per creation. I'm the creator and I really don't know why this image should be deleted. Why this image, Image:Ed g2s.png isn't deleted? (it's an example). This image is used (like a lot of photos) in only one page, in the user page of the uploader. I didn't create the EV-In image to use it in my userpage, I created it because I had to use a free-use image (fair-use image are not allowed in projects) to illustrate the WikiProject Evanescence and it's also used in the Ev userboxes. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- And about the commentaries above; who has said it is a logo? It's just a misc graphic. And ed g2s, if you haven't read the summary of the image, it clearly says inspired, not derivated'. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Remove from any articles, and maybe totally delete. Since it was admittedly made to look like the original logo, that is a trademark violation unless the original owner has a policy that allows it. It might also be a copyright violation; even if you start from scratch and draw something that looks similar, that might be a breach. We may get away with it on Wikipedia, but this has to be tagged as licensed under something other than the GFDL.--GunnarRene 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Omg...I've said this like 10000 times. The image is used for the WIKIPROJECT EVANESCENCE AND EVANESCENCE USERBOXES. NOT ARTICLES. I DIDN'T CREATE IT TO USE IT ON THE EVANESCENCE ARTICLES, BUT THE WIKIPROJECT. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- GunnarRene, trademark protection does not work like copyright protection. It only protects against the use of similar trademarks being used on similar products or services such that consumers may become confused as to who made what. It does not protect against copying in the abstract, as copyright does. The user created logo would have to be associated with a competitor of Evanescence, such as another band (just as if a beverage other than Coca-Cola used white script on a red background), or used in a manner that incorrectly suggests that Evanescence created or sponsored this website. There just isn't a real trademark concern here, and even if there were, copyright licenses such as the GFDL are completely irrelevant to trademarks. And as I explained above, I don't think there is a copyright concern either. Postdlf 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's pretty clearly a derivative work of the Evanescence logo. If the creator can claim fair use of the original logo (possibly on the grounds of parody), they can release their work under a free license, but that's getting into areas of fair-use doctrine I'd really rather avoid. --Carnildo 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- ?? It's derivated just cuz it looks like it? So if I create a graphic that shows a "LC", it means it's a derivated work of the Lacuna Coil logo? This, this! is really a derivated work. This Image:Eric.svg (Eric Cartman) is a derivated graphic I made of [[Eric Cartman. That's derivated work!. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- From 17 USC 101: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." Looks to me like Image:EV-In.svg took the 'E', 'V', and terminating circle from the Evanescence logo and combined them into a new logo, which makes it a derivative work. --Carnildo 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- But what it takes from the original has to be itself copyrightable for it to be a derivative. "EV" certainly isn't copyrightable, nor are circles, and the user logo does not even intersect the text with the circle in the same way as the band logo so the composition is different. If the original band logo is copyrightable, it would probably have to be copied nearly verbatim to be infringed, because it's so simple. Postdlf 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- From 17 USC 101: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." Looks to me like Image:EV-In.svg took the 'E', 'V', and terminating circle from the Evanescence logo and combined them into a new logo, which makes it a derivative work. --Carnildo 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's unencyclopedic, so should be kept out of article space, but the copyright argument is specious. Just "looks like" is not grounds to consider something a derivative work. --Random832 12:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a free image - if anything the most drastic action should be to move to userspace, not delete. As far as using it in encyclopedia articles, what makes this any less worthy of inclusion in articles, templates, portals, etc. than e.g. Image:Stargate-earth-glyph.svg? DHowell 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hktblogo.jpg, Image:Uciprotour5zf.jpg, Image:Logo of the UCI.jpg, Image:MTF.gif edit
All of them had their vector images. BrockF5 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:DejaVu_Fonts_uf_vt.gif edit
Image:Everson Mono uf vt.gif edit
Image:Marine_Wire_Mesh.jpg edit
- appears to be advertising content -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably CV issue too. --Selket Talk 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Srbnod.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Paintball24 (notify | contribs).
- OR — SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Uk-scouts-county-badge-berks.gif edit
- Obsolete - replaced with Image:Uk-scouts-county-badge-greater-manchester-north.gif - Horus Kol Talk 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg edit
- Owner request to delete pornographic image. — 131.107.0.73 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Image:Cindy.jpg edit
- - uploaded by Thedemonhog (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. This image is likely mistagged, as lost-media.com's copyright notice gives no indication that this is a promotional photograph or advertising material. The image also lacks a fair use rationale. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's in the section of the site marked "LOST Episode Promotional Photos". Fair use template added. Gimmetrow 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The link you provide was only a temporary one; it's not longer working. Regardless, lost-media.com is "a fan run website and is not affiliated with ABC/Touchstone TV in any way." They admit that they're not a valid or verifiable source for ABC/Touchstone promotional photos. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't provide any link, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Original uploader tagged it as promophoto, and the image is so identified on the lost-media.com site which you provided above. Gimmetrow 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK. The link isn't working. And the source is "a fan run website and is not affiliated with ABC/Touchstone TV in any way." They don't have ownership of these photos, so how do they have the right to say that these are promo photos? If they are indeed promo photos, provide evidence from the owners of the image. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't provide any link, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Original uploader tagged it as promophoto, and the image is so identified on the lost-media.com site which you provided above. Gimmetrow 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The link you provide was only a temporary one; it's not longer working. Regardless, lost-media.com is "a fan run website and is not affiliated with ABC/Touchstone TV in any way." They admit that they're not a valid or verifiable source for ABC/Touchstone promotional photos. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's in the section of the site marked "LOST Episode Promotional Photos". Fair use template added. Gimmetrow 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to original nomination: ...lost-media.com's copyright notice gives no indication that this is a promotional photograph... That's simply false, it clearly is so indicated, as even cursory research would have discovered. If this is now insufficent for a good faith belief that the image was, in fact, an ABC promophoto, fine. Gimmetrow 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can write a fair use rationale later today, and remove the text at the bottom of the image. Keep it. --thedemonhog 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Fansites are never a valid source for promotional images. They are at best resuers (but usually simply copyright violators). The original source must be know in order to state an image is really promotional. Not every thing that looks like promo material is promo material (in the sense that it's intended to be widely used by the media). Some material, for instance, is only intended to be used on the official website (increasing it's value), or intended to be used only by specific media members according to some exclusivity deal. --Abu badali (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original nominator said nothing about the source of the promophoto being a problem, so this is an entirely different issue. Could it be resolved by using a generic fair use tag and lowering the resolution? Gimmetrow 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because it has nothing to do with image resolution. The nominator said "lost-media.com is "a fan run website and is not affiliated with ABC/Touchstone TV in any way". --Abu badali (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the nomination did NOT say that. Gimmetrow 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- What? Maybe not the original nomination, but see my comment at 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC). Whether it's in the "original" nomination is besides the point. This isn't about a "good faith belief" in the uploader; rather, it's about the uploader providing convincing evidence to the contrary — the uploader's source obviously isn't a source for promotional images. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The source of this image is ABC, who owns the copyright to the image, and the image is used under "fair use". WP could use any image under a fair use claim - this particular one was chosen because it was a promotional photo, but its status as such is incidental to the fair use claim. If you wish to dispute the promotional status because the notice on the fansite isn't good enough, I said above that was fine. The promotional status has little effect on the fair use claim. Do you have any suggestions for how to resolve this nomination? Gimmetrow 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I first checked on this image, it claimed fair use based on it being a promotional photograph. Is there any evidence that it's a promotional photograph? No. It's not automatically a promotional photograph just because it's from ABC/Touchstone. When I returned to this image, it claimed fair use based on its status as both a promotional photograph and a TV screenshot. It's not a promotional photograph (I explained that earlier), and the evidence seems to point to the fact that it may not be a TV screenshot (it was pulled off the Web). If you can source it and license correctly (please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use), there's no problem. I nominated this image originally because it was licensed incorrectly and there was no fair use rationale. I see that a fair use rationale has been added, but there still isn't a good license. The solution is simple, and I've told you this many times in the past — source and license the image correctly (again. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use) or have the image deleted. There are no alternatives, since this isn't a free image. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does use a template from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use. To the best of my knowledge, use of this image is claimed under fair use, not the terms of the promotional license, so {{Non-free fair use in}} seems the most appropriate licensing tag. As required by FU #10 the source is ABC who is also the copyright holder. This (and the fact that it was a promotional image) can be verified by contacting the ABC archive department. What else needs to be done? Gimmetrow 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{Non-free fair use in}} could work; why didn't you make that kind of a fair use claim in the first place?
- I did back on the 13th, someone else deleted that and added the screenshot template.
- I went ahead and searched for this image's status as a promotional image. First, I went to ABC.com's LOST Web site here. Click on "photos" --> "Season 2" --> "07 The Other 48 Days," and then scroll over to photo 18. There it is! Unfortunately, the terms of use and copyright notice on the Web site do not indicate that it is a promotional image.
- So, I went over to the Web site for ABC Television Studio Press, where I figured I'd be able to find a repository of press photos. Indeed I did; however, after scanning through the 667 images, I was unable to locate the image in question.
- All evidence points toward the fact that this is not a promotional image. The ABC.com site explicitly notes that the image is not a promotional image. This is why I don't understand where you continue to get the idea that it is a promotional image. I will be removing the promotional image fair use claim if you still don't have any evidence to the contrary.
- Remember, I have never based this nominated for deletion solely on the claim that this image should be deleted because we can't prove that it's a promotional photo. Rather, I claimed that the fair use claim was invalid, because all of the evidence said that it wasn't a promotional photo, and because it was missing a fair use rationale. I never deviated from those claims until they finally got fixed — the fair use claim was changed, and the rationale was added. You're right — it doesn't have to be a promotional photo to be used under a fair use claim. I never claimed otherwise; you've simply been putting words in my mouth. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this done then? The image is not a currently available promotional photo, but it can be requested through the archive department of ABCMedianet.com. The oldest images there appear to be from the end of season three, and this is from the beginning of season three. However, the standard promotional license probably is not useful because these images are typically licensed on a per-site basis, and a WP-only license doesn't help. I considered contacting ABC about this, but I not sure what to even ask for. Gimmetrow 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- How did you know the image was from ABCMedianet.com? — Rebelguys2 talk 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does use a template from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use. To the best of my knowledge, use of this image is claimed under fair use, not the terms of the promotional license, so {{Non-free fair use in}} seems the most appropriate licensing tag. As required by FU #10 the source is ABC who is also the copyright holder. This (and the fact that it was a promotional image) can be verified by contacting the ABC archive department. What else needs to be done? Gimmetrow 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I first checked on this image, it claimed fair use based on it being a promotional photograph. Is there any evidence that it's a promotional photograph? No. It's not automatically a promotional photograph just because it's from ABC/Touchstone. When I returned to this image, it claimed fair use based on its status as both a promotional photograph and a TV screenshot. It's not a promotional photograph (I explained that earlier), and the evidence seems to point to the fact that it may not be a TV screenshot (it was pulled off the Web). If you can source it and license correctly (please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use), there's no problem. I nominated this image originally because it was licensed incorrectly and there was no fair use rationale. I see that a fair use rationale has been added, but there still isn't a good license. The solution is simple, and I've told you this many times in the past — source and license the image correctly (again. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use) or have the image deleted. There are no alternatives, since this isn't a free image. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The source of this image is ABC, who owns the copyright to the image, and the image is used under "fair use". WP could use any image under a fair use claim - this particular one was chosen because it was a promotional photo, but its status as such is incidental to the fair use claim. If you wish to dispute the promotional status because the notice on the fansite isn't good enough, I said above that was fine. The promotional status has little effect on the fair use claim. Do you have any suggestions for how to resolve this nomination? Gimmetrow 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- What? Maybe not the original nomination, but see my comment at 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC). Whether it's in the "original" nomination is besides the point. This isn't about a "good faith belief" in the uploader; rather, it's about the uploader providing convincing evidence to the contrary — the uploader's source obviously isn't a source for promotional images. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the nomination did NOT say that. Gimmetrow 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded a lower resolution version, removed the watermark and wrote a fair use rationale. --thedemonhog 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with resolution. We need to know the original image source (i.e. when/where was the image released) in order to be able to claim fair use. You rationale, for instance, fails when it says "ABC does not lose any rights to sell and advertise", because we don't know how did ABC planned to use this image. If the image was intended to improve their official website, making it distinguishable from other websites by containing exclusive material, then our use certainly hurts the copyright holder. It the image was intended to be licensed only for some specific members of the media, through exclusivity deals, then our use certainly hurts the copyright holder. The point is, we can never say "ABC does not lose any rights" without verifiable information on when and where was this image released.
- As a general rule, all unfree images must contain proper source information, otherwise we're not able to fulfill item #2 of WP:FUC. --Abu badali (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you suggest as a solution to this quandary? Gimmetrow 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you really need to illustrate this fictional character, I suggest use a screenshot. As source information, identify the series's names and episode number. Credit the series copyright holder too. --Abu badali (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you suggest as a solution to this quandary? Gimmetrow 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because it has nothing to do with image resolution. The nominator said "lost-media.com is "a fan run website and is not affiliated with ABC/Touchstone TV in any way". --Abu badali (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original nominator said nothing about the source of the promophoto being a problem, so this is an entirely different issue. Could it be resolved by using a generic fair use tag and lowering the resolution? Gimmetrow 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
