Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
February 22
[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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Waldo McBurney.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyttend (notify | contribs | uploads).
WP:NFC#UULP gives as an example of "unacceptable use" for fair use photos, "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." This is a press agency photo used only in the infobox. A different photo of the same person was previously deleted at IFD for the same reason. As I said there a year and a half ago, use of this image violates WP:NFCC#2 because our use of it robs the copyright holder of their opportunities to collect royalties from us as well as downstream uses. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes#DMCA_takedowns_of_fair_use_and_US-Gov-PD_images where we removed a Getty image from the 1960s in response to a DMCA demand that was being used under a similarly incorrect claim of fair use. We can't use press photos unless the photo itself is of historic significance. A picture in an infobox isn't remotely close to meeting that standard. B (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That DMCA wasn't a Getty agency image, it was a portrait of someone with the last name Getty. And just because someone submits a DMCA takedown request (or that request is complied with, at least temporarily, or to avoid unnecessary hassle) does not mean the person who submitted the request is in the right. No comment on these specific circumstances because I don't know the details. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, last time I checked, the Hays Daily News (observe that the photo is credited to one of the paper's photographers, not an outside source) isn't a press agency. Such a basic error makes your whole argument crumble. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter - the principle is the same whether it's a single newspaper or the Associated Press. If you were using this image for critical commentary on the photographer's skill, that is acceptable. But we're only using it because we're too cheap to pay royalties for it. That isn't fair use in the real world and the only reason it has ever been considered by some to be acceptable here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what fair use is. If this newspaper were to send a DMCA takedown notice, we'd have no choice but to remove it - just like the Getty image. Our use is completely non-transformative (a key requirement for a use to be legitimate fair use) and were the idea that we could appropriate such things to be deemed acceptable, it would have the effect of rendering copyrights of all press photos useless as anyone could simply claim "fair use". --B (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this use clearly meets all the policy requirements for fair use, as far as the guideline part - it only mentions press agency photos, not single newspapers. User:B clearly has an extremely strict view of fair use. I doubt that many other folks would have such a strict view, I certainly don't. Smallbones (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that every photographer who works for a local newspaper should just quit their job and go on unemployment, right? After all, the newspaper can just steal their photos and claim "fair use". --B (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that at all. Your reaction looks like an example of an extreme viewpoint on Fair Use, i.e. "any Fair Use of photos puts people out of work, so therefore should not be allowed." That's what you said, right? Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all. The problem is when we take a photo that somebody took solely for the purpose of selling rights to use it and we use that photo, depriving them of their right to collect royalties for its use. If you follow that logic to its conclusion, why should anyone ever pay them royalties? Fair use photos should only be those where the photo itself is historic or where they came from a press pack/media guide/some such thing. --B (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that at all. Your reaction looks like an example of an extreme viewpoint on Fair Use, i.e. "any Fair Use of photos puts people out of work, so therefore should not be allowed." That's what you said, right? Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that every photographer who works for a local newspaper should just quit their job and go on unemployment, right? After all, the newspaper can just steal their photos and claim "fair use". --B (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Part of the FUR says Because no fee is charged to view the image at its source, use of this image will not damage commercial opportunities. It is important to note that the paper sells it's photos. For example A 4x6 print costs $5.00. It costs $10.00 to have an image put on a key chain. Eight wallet sized prints are $15.00. All of those uses are for private personal use. This images use here may not fall under the Wikipedia Getty/A.P CSD F7 policy criteria, but it clearly *does* fall under NFCC#2 policy criteria - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the part of NFCC#2 where it says "Any use that might theoretically cost the copyright owner even 1 cent is prohibited." No, it says we can't use material that is "likely to replace the original market role" of the material. The original market role for this material was to sell newspapers in Hays, Kansas and provide the paper with advertising opportunities. You might argue that selling pictures online is part of the original market role. OK - a 150 x 240 pixel photo here is extremely unlikely to replace a 4'" x 6'" print (and the likely market for these prints is less than half a dozen in any case), the market for this guy's photo on a key chain is likely non-existent, as is the market for 8 wallet sized prints. Thus the inclusion here is highly unlikely to replace the original market role. Smallbones (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Unfortunately Wikipedia policy is not based someones opinion that, because they have no use for "for this guy's photo on a key chain", there is no value to the work being sold. Clearly your comments to keep the image prove there *is* a value to the work, otherwise you would not care if it was deleted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that someone can download the photo from Wikipedia is not what lessens the market role. Rather, the notion that you can use the photo without royalties would eliminate the market role (why would anyone ever pay for it?). --B (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the part of NFCC#2 where it says "Any use that might theoretically cost the copyright owner even 1 cent is prohibited." No, it says we can't use material that is "likely to replace the original market role" of the material. The original market role for this material was to sell newspapers in Hays, Kansas and provide the paper with advertising opportunities. You might argue that selling pictures online is part of the original market role. OK - a 150 x 240 pixel photo here is extremely unlikely to replace a 4'" x 6'" print (and the likely market for these prints is less than half a dozen in any case), the market for this guy's photo on a key chain is likely non-existent, as is the market for 8 wallet sized prints. Thus the inclusion here is highly unlikely to replace the original market role. Smallbones (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: while the commercial issue may not be quite as pressing with a single newspaper source as with a commercial news agency source (we mandate immediate speedy deletion only for the latter), it doesn't mean we are automatically on the safe side with the former, and the finding that there actually is an ongoing market role beyond the one-off publication in the original news report clearly indicates there is an NFCC2 problem here. That said, there's another important thing: have appropriate efforts been made to locate (a) a trule free photograph; (b) a photograph where commercial interests might be at least not as strong? There are photographs online made by private photographers and published on private image sharing sites, for instance here: [1]. Has the owner of that album been contacted with a polite request to release one? Have people tried contacting his family? Unless all avenues of that sort have been exhausted, we shouldn't even begin thinking about a non-free image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NFCC because our use would fail to respect the commercial value of the image. No commercial content source would try to claim fair use on this image - they'd expect to pay royalties. Thparkth (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AM40thBoxes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hholland (notify | contribs | uploads).
This is a clear derivative work and it was marked as such and set for deletion back in October 2010 for lacking a proper license and a FUR but never deleted. It was also tagged as orphaned and set for deletion now. However all the tags were removed (see dif) and {{Non-free product cover}} was added. It is still {{Di-orphaned fair use}} and it is still a {{derivative}} and it also is {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. At this point the image should be speedied, as the removal of valid tags and sending it here is just adding a lot of undue process for deletion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously, and I have readded the {{subst:orfud}} timer, with the expiration that it originally had. --B (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (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 Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Homewrekka.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alchemic Wrath (notify | contribs | uploads).
OGG file for a band that we don't have an article on. My db-a9 tag was removed with the claim that that's only appropriate for article space. Corvus cornixtalk 18:54, 22 February 2011 (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: speedy delete, per CSD F7. The argument raised below that the low resolution avoids commercial damage in a case like this is invalid: agencies like AP do charge money even for small web-size copies, and charge this money from websites that might offer very much the same kind of overall coverage that we do, so the infringement upon its market role is immediate. As for the relation between the wording of NFCC#2 and CSD #F7, it is also a red herring: the one is binding policy just as much as the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zhao.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wegalu (notify | contribs | uploads).
Speedy per policy: Sending here because an editor keeps removing the tag. It is an explicit violation of policy. Credit to: Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. (May 19, 1989) is all that is needed in relation to CSD F7 - any image that is from a commercial content provider such as Getty and not itself the subject of commentary can be deleted on site. Currently being use din three articles yet no not one of them is about the image itself which is explicitly what policy requires. See The Falling Man for one example of how it needs to be used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NFCC2 (respect for commercial opportunities) - this argument is slightly weaker since it's such an old image. Mostly, fails WP:NFCC8 - while the image relates to a historic event, it does not itself illustrate anything that significantly adds to readers' understanding. The men are just standing next to each other. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note previous discussion of this image (why I declined the speedy). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply/Comment: That discussion was based, first, on the fact "it doesn't have a separate rationale for each use" so it is not really a good comparison to what/why it was tagged for deletion now, in 2011. The commercial content issue was brought up but not fully discussed (to any true resolution - the two main editors that were involved in the commercial content discussion actually seemed to agree that while it captured an "historic moment" the image itself was "not famous or iconic", one summed it up nicely: This use of the image is in no way transformative (no parody or critical discussion of the image itself). Because of the lack of transformation we have to consider the effect on the work's value.) Two other important facts about that discussion - that was not a deletion discussion and it was done in 2008. Since that time the use of such non-free content has gotten more clearly defined. F7 is now very explicit is this regard. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image helps the reader understand the historic event it illustrates, which is discussed in detail at Zhao Ziyang#Political aftermath of Tiananmen, but which is more difficult to understand, appreciate and remember without the image that encapsulates and symbolizes it. At this low resolution, the image is also not likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media (reprints in newspapers, books etc.) Finally, as explained at WT:CSD#F7 question, I doubt that the clause of WP:CSD#F7 invoked here is an accurate representation of WP:NFCC; rather, it seems to seek to restrict fair use of copyrighted media substantially beyond the requirements of WP:NFCC, by requiring "critical commentary about the image" whereas no such requirement exists in WP:NFCC. Sandstein 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unfortunately your questions in another discussion and your reply here indicates you are not really understanding Wikipedia policy on non-free content use overall. "critical commentary" is always an issue at Wikipedia - because the policy requires it. Policy wording may not use those words, and that is why there are so many plain English explanations of what "Contextual significance" means in relation to non-free content. You can take *any* non-free content and just place it into an article and it would be questioned if there is no "critical commentary" on it. With any content from a commercial content provider there is an added level of "need" because, in 2011, most every major commercial provider of content charges for *all* uses, even personal use. That fact alone causes most such material to fail the Non-free content criteria policy, namely number two - "respect for commercial opportunities". As has been well established over and over again any such material needs to be the subject of actual discussion within the article itself. At it core saying "this event happened and people were at it" is *not* enough for non-free content to be used overall, toss in content that must be purchased for a use such as Wikipedia and it "blatantly" does not meet our policy requirements. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for the moment - this one might be an exception as a historically significant photo. If the photo itself is significant (as opposed to simply happening to show the face of someone that we want to show) then we can use it. Certainly this photo is used constantly in any story about the subject [2][3][4] I think you can more than make the case that the photo itself is of historical significance, as opposed to merely depicting something significant. The reason for "neutral" and not "keep": the articles don't currently make that case and thus our use of the photo is not transformative. --B (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a key element you left out when showing those links - they pay to use the photo. Also, if the photo itself is significant than it should have its own stand alone article at Wikipedia, in which case the image would be seen as meeting the policy requirements. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the first part of what you said, but don't agree with the second part. The Kent State shootings photo is a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, but it does not have its own standalone article. I don't think the standard is "having its own standalone article", but, rather, more along the lines of, "is so significant that any reasonably complete article about the topic would necessarily include the photo". --B (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:I have mentioned the Kent state image in the past in relation to the Kent State shootings. However there is a massive difference between that image and the one being discussed - the Kent State image *is* an iconic image, it has become synonymous with the shootings at Kent State. It is also used in the John Filo article and there is very specific "critical commentary" about that photo in the article. It is also used in Mary Ann Vecchio, because the iconic image placed her into that "notable" stature *and* that article also gives the back-story on one of the subjects of the image, so the article is truly using the image in a transformative nature by adding a lot of new information to the image itself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a key element you left out when showing those links - they pay to use the photo. Also, if the photo itself is significant than it should have its own stand alone article at Wikipedia, in which case the image would be seen as meeting the policy requirements. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (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.