Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18[edit]

File:F72962.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary makes it appear that the photographer is the (c) holder, not the uploader - either way, OR & subject not ID'd (unless it is of the photographer) Skier Dude (talk 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless, regardless of the copyright issue. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because there is no real summary, and the editor did not upload any other images, there is no real way to be sure if they are the listed photographer or the subject of the image. Currently the image is unused but I think it was orphaned from the deletion of Pippa Bennett-Warner. (See Toby Frow directs our 4th Playhouse Live play, 'Crocodile' and Royal Academy of Dramatic Art) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (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.

File:FACH.png[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, too small & blurry to be of use Skier Dude (talk 05:22, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:FC.JPG[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can be replaced by $C_{m}=Z_{m}\bullet f$ Skier Dude (talk 05:37, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:FHDF.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, no target article or encyc use provided Skier Dude (talk 05:46, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:FINAL LOGO.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE - looks to be user-made (&badly rendered) logo Skier Dude (talk 05:47, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:FIREWEEN.JPG[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, nonsense "holiday" Skier Dude (talk 05:49, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:FLORENTINO MESA, ANCHOR.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR- photo used in place of article on the subject Skier Dude (talk 05:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant Spam. Can't see where they did anything else other than upload this image and a duplicate of it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also: File:FOTOS TINO CANAL 6.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is the same image at a higher quality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (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.

File:FYD.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, subject not ID'd Skier Dude (talk 06:03, 18 September 2010 (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.

File:Victoria Climbié.jpg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copvio of a press agency photo. (See also Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.) An admin removed the original {{Non-free historic image}} tag, which clearly states Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not [be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Our Policy on Fair use, number 2 states: 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. The CSD tag I used was CSD F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement. which states that while copyvio can exclude images with a FUR it *includes* most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. The break this down further, for those who are not clear what these policy pages state we have a plain English version found at the example in Unacceptable use - Images - 7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. For reference one can search and read numerous conversations and deletion discussions on the exact issue. Jimbo himself had the "final word" is deleting the press agency image File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg as a copyvio, despite having a FUR. You can read the deletion discussion as well: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 28#Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg. In the years I have been active here this discussion always come up when trying to delete photos from agency - in this case another editor discovered this image was actually handled by a press agency called Press Association. The "source" images, watermarked because one needs to pay to use them, can be found at PA.1366966 and PA.1366965. The source of the uploaded image is a news article at telegraph.co.uk where it shows photo credit to "PA". Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the uploader showed me this image and I advised that it could only be used if the image was the subject of sourced commentary, as it was copyright to Press Association. When I realised it was being used in the infobox, I tagged it {{db-badfairuse}} - I'm not so well up on CSD for images so initially thought that Fastily had removed it as it was the wrong tag. Images of the subject exist which are not copyright to PA or another press agency, and I would have thought that our Non-free content policy would require us to use one of those, rather than an image which is specifically available for sale.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this claims fair use, so it's not a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You very recently, publicly, stated Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria. Let me take a moment to try and explain this particular image: It does not matter that *this* image has a FUR as I explained in the nom. Likewise not all images with a FUR are magically exempt from speedy deletions. Elen's CSD via the {{db-badfairuse}} tag was valid - the Policy on Fair use, number 2 states: 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. This image fails the criteria, and as such Elin correctly nominated this image as a non-free image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria. I must point out that I did not know Elin had made any CSD nom when I placed a copyvio CSD on it because, when I checked on the image several hours after a conversation about the image, I saw that links to the "original" PA versions as well as the {{Non-free historic image}} tag had been removed. I mistakenly thought that the uploader was trying to hide the fact the image is a press image, thus failed policy. It was after I tagged it as a copyvio that I looked at the history and saw that it was Fastily that had removed that information as well as the first correct CSD tag. (I publicly apologize for thinking the uploader had removed it). When I realized this had happened I went to Fastily's talk page and left a message. As I was leaving a message another admin removed my CSD tag so, in turn, I basically cut and pasted what I had said to Fastily and said it to the admin who had removed *my* CSD. That admin reverted their own edit, but Fastily removed that and went off on me. So here were. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from attacking me with quotes taken out of context; I don't understand every detail of fair use criteria too well, but I do know that blatant copyvios are eligible for F9 speedy deletion, and I know that this isn't F9 eligible. We don't delete non-free images as copyvios if they're claimed as fair use; it's just like at WP:PUF, where claimed fair use images are not discussed. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "attack" you and there is nothing being taken out of context. You made a recent post with the title of Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria - anyone can read your post and see it is just what your "title" says it is. And even here what you are saying indicates you still may not fully understand the policies involved. Even with links to the policy, guidelines, tags and archived deletion discussions involving this issue you, again, state "We don't delete non-free images as copyvios if they're claimed as fair use" - however we *do* speedy certain images claimed as Fair Use. If you do not want to re-read the entire nom than simply look at File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg. It was speedied as a copyvio, than reverted and than Jimbo stepped in. By all means I encourage you to read the deletion discussion as well. See also Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. On the other hand let me try to explain it this way - if we have an article that is cut and pasted from the Associated Press claiming it is being used as fair use that article is either speedied as a copyvio or tagged with a {{copyvio}}, which blanks the page with the {{Copyviocore}}. We don't hold deletion discussions that the text is being used under fair use, thusly is exempt from deletion. However if you sill want to hold true to your belief than please point me to a policy that states Wikipedia can not/must not delete press and photo agency images if they are marked with a FUR. I would love to see it because if it exists we would need to reverse many deletions and re-write policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you use a quote to demean me on an idea totally irrelevant to the quote. I was talking about certain details of the policy related to using nonfree images, not their sources, and you know that if you've read it. What's more, you've also failed to understand my entire point: you set up a straw man of "we cannot/must not delete" press agency images that are tagged as fair use, and then you attack me with it. It's possible to make fair use of AP images, and I believe that this is an appropriate example. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I really think you are not understanding the policy issues being discussed here, and, again, I did not attack you nor did I make this nom because of anything you did. However, when you came into this deletion discussion stating a "keep" opinion because "this claims fair use, so it's not a copyvio" you either ignored the bulk of the nom or did not understand it. In another location you had asked a question that had to do with fair use images and how to use the policy, because you do not understand it very well. (A perfectly legit quesiton, I never said it wasn't) That post made by you is important in this discussion because part of the nom deals with criteria you say you do not fully understand. And you are also seemingly forgetting what you said in the reply, where you said I was attacking you, that you do not understand every detail of the fair use criteria "too well". And again, in that response, ignored the bulk of the nom saying "We don't delete non-free images as copyvios if they're claimed as fair use." You still did *not* address the image in question and what it is - an image from a press agency being used as an illustration, rather than the subject of the article. Policy is very clear on these types of images: they "can be removed on sight." I have been patient waiting for a link to policy to back up your claims that, to me, are based on a belief that there is no policy allowing for images such as this one to speedied. Your above response to that question is not actually about the question, or the existing policies - it is more claims that I am attacking you. The bottom line with this image is this: (using the words directly from a section of *policy* about fair use image use) this image is an "Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use" thusly this image "constitutes copyright infringement". In plain English: this image is being claimed as meeting all 10 of another *policy* (including WP:NFCC#2) when it does not. In more plain English: images of this type can only be used "when the image itself is the subject of commentary" and, even more directly, an example of an image that *fails* the policy would be " A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article". That wording has been explained time and time again with examples - which unfortunately some editors toss aside because the plain English examples are not "policy". It would be impossible to list every single photo and press agency in the world in any policy or law - so Wikipedia uses generic terms in it's policy based on the US Copyright law wording (US Copyright law: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Wikipedia Policy: Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.) and, again, just because CSD F9 says it may be used on "stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" (fur or not) it does not mean any other press or stock photo agency not so named is not eligible as a speedy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NFC#UUI #7.~~--Rockfang (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Also per Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#2.--Rockfang (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nyttend. There is no policy that exclusively exists to ban the use of press agency photos. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response to Nyttend above. You are also very welcome to point out the policy that backs up your "keep" opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy criterion that we apply to allegedly copyvio images is F9, which only applies to images that are claimed as free. That's part of deletion policy, as is WP:NPA. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let is not fall out over this. I hope no-one minds, I have asked at WP:MCQ if anyone else would care to comment (on any side of the argument), as I think more voices are the only way this will be resolved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP's requirements are stronger than US fair use laws, and we forbid the use of press agency photos per WP:NFCC/WP:NFC unless the photo itself is subject of commentary. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Fastily - Being a policy violation isn't a requirement for an image to be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lest anyone is in any doubt. Fails #2 of WP:NFCC Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2010 (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.

File:UP 7015 plan view.jpg[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: keep, as I believe concerns raised have been addressed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this may qualify as {{PD-Pre1978}} pr {{PD-US-not renewed}}, however I admittedly haven't done the in depth research required (a look here might help). If it doesn't qualify as this, it is likely replaceable fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat concerned about the document's provenance; compare it with this one: [1]. I have a suspicion that the latter is the real article while the former may be a latter-day reproduction. At least with the latter we know who made it. In the absence of a copyright notice I think a good case can be made for public domain; even if not an excellent case can be made for fair use. No photograph conveys the mechanical details in that fashion, and no free alternative exists (and if we were to draw our own it would be original research or a copyright violation). Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just tagged this for fair-use. The one at Mackensen's link looks a little too hand-drawn for my tastes. ----DanTD (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2010 (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.