Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

File:Twitter superinjunction.PNG

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 and consider relicensing to a free image (I'm not completely confident in doing that myself). (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC #8 (as the image could be replaced by a portion of the tweet). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC) EDIT Additionally, it may very well be that the tweet itself fails WP:TOO, and so this image would fail WP:NFCC #1 as well. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't really see a problem here, the image is within the normal range for a screenshot. It could be slightly smaller.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need to see the Twitter background, so that fails WP:NFCC#8. Besides, it is too hard to read the text in the article, and the text is the only useful part of the image. I'm not sure if the text meets WP:NFCC#8 either as you can easily understand the article without knowing the exact words used on Twitter. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've tried to upload a cropped version of the image. I see news reports routinely displaying Twitter tweets so I'm not terribly convinced that there's a fair-use issue with displaying the actual text. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the avatar could be cropped out too (or demonstrated to be public domain - I have no idea where the egg is originally from), then there's nothing but typeface and that's not copyrightable. I suppose the text itself could be sufficiently creative to be copyrightable (debatable), but if it is, quoting the text in prose is not a more limited use than having a picture of the same text, so I'd be fine with keeping the image in that case. --B (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep it. I see no problem here. Yes, the text is kinda difficult to read but you can click on the picture to read it. And the egg is not copyrightable as it's a stock photo that Twitter uses in an Open Domain format. Vlasktom (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (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:Sinbad Album Fold Out.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Sinbad (Weldon Irvine) Album Cover.jpg, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album foldout shows the complete cover art. If anything, under WP:NFCC#3a the other file is redundant as it is just the front portion of the entire cover art. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC#3b tells that you shouldn't use an entire work, so removing the left half sounds like a perfectly appropriate solution. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2013 (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:Acyclic Stereocontrol.jpeg

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bad JPEG}}, replaced in Macrocyclic stereocontrol by File:Acyclic Stereocontrol.svg. Leyo 09:15, 15 April 2013 (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:Prabhu.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of image unclear; little encyclopaedic use foreseeable Super Mario Man 09:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No idea who the subject is. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after moving to Commons, since it is public domain. Then if anybody has a burning need for a grainy public domain image of a smiling man in a tartan shirt they can find it there.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (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:Intaflex.jpg

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 Leyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; no article. Super Mario Man 10:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Hard to tell whether this is a joke or a hidden article, but in any case it's certainly not encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image appears to be like a forum signature and we are not Imageshack. The user hasn't been on since 2007, so I doubt he'll miss either the image or the weird essay.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (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:Overture 4800 10G Optical Ethernet Edge.jpg

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: OTRS permission confirmed and added. (non admin closure) Trijnstel_talk 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photos of network devices being used under a claim of fair use. Though the description page claims it is being used with permission, that permission is Wikipedia-only. There is no reason that a freely licensed photo could not be created, thus failing WP:NFCC#1. B (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that this image, along with two others, which are currently being used for the Overture Networks article are being considered for deletion due to the way they're licensed. I spoke with Overture Networks, and they're willing to change the license so that the images can be used freely. If I go ahead and make that change, will that prevent their deletion?
Thank you very much,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample declaration of consent that the copyright holder could use. If they follow the instructions there and send a message to [email protected] releasing the images under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" license, then that would be considered sufficient. --B (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI permission has been forwarded to OTRS so please check before deleting. --B (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS user has confirmed that permission has been received, so once an OTRS person tags these images, we are good to go. --B (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (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:GOT Walk of Punishment.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Not necessary for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is probably explaining WP:NFCC#8 too narrowly. Featured articles on TV episodes like Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Trapped in the Closet (South Park), You Only Move Twice, Damien (South Park) and Over There (Fringe) seem to be more than content with a screenshot and a small message explaining what is seen. This should satisfy NFCC#8.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Read the documentation for the "image" tag for {{Infobox television episode}} or similar discussions like WP:NFCR#Star Trek: Voyager episode images. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. I purposely listed featured articles here. Those articles are checked, checked, checked once more and checked all over again to make sure they comply with all the relevant Wikipedia policies. If those screenshots were really terrible to have, those articles would not have made it to featured status. Those articles tell a story: your interpreation of NFCC#8 is too narrow.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't mean that the reviewers got everything right, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this image is not a random screenshot from the episode. It does show the "walk of punishment" from which the episode title derives its name. In that respect, it greatly enhances the reader's understanding of what the "walk of punishment" is and what it looks like.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the caption even more to establish an even clearer connection between the image and the article.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amber is mistaken in thinking that episodes can have an image as a matter of course as long as it shows some important element of the plot. The criterion is much more strict: it needs to show something that could not be treated adequately otherwise. In this case, the "walk of punishment" can't really be as important to the episode as he makes it out to be, because the scene is not even mentioned anywhere else in the article. Since that is the case, there is also no appreciable need for the reader to get a visual illustration of what it looks like, or a reason why such coverage would have to be more detailed than what a simple verbal description could do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be used as a criterion, it's not enough for this picture, which doesn't add anything to the article. The image can be replaced by a single line in the text. DonQuixote (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (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:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 April 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image isn't at the indicated source (or at least I can't find it), so it violates WP:NFCC#10a. Additionally, if it indeed does come from Washington Post, then it most likely violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

source clearly linked here [1]; historic image of deceased dancer; there are no free images as indicated by a google search. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it there. I only see a different photo (this one which is sourced to the Associated Press). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the photo there either. This article attributes the photo to Reuters though. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That clearly makes it violate WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scroll down ?! i'm seeing it in firefox, chrome, and i.e.? [2]; no, the minimal size has no effect on the commercial value; the photographer is credited. the post did not credit reuters. the photo illustrates the critical commentary that she won a kennedy center honor award. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News and photo agencies sell images in both low and high resolutions. For example, I took a look at a random image at Getty's website, and the smallest size listed was 280 x 210 pixels. That's even less than this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't like this one, pick one from here [3] minimize is one, not zero. apparently a search of the reuters website yields a null result [4] i didn't pick getty; i see a total of four low rez reuters photos, [5]; and this is not one of them; therefore, no commercial impact.Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 22:51, 15 April 2013 (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:Pauline Kael.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter isn't the original source. This page tells that the photo was taken by the Associated Press. As such, it violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This file was speedily deleted and a different image from a different source was uploaded in its place. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell whether the current image satisfies WP:NFCC#2? The image is used at a lot of other places on the Internet, some predating this website.

Additionally: WP:NFCC#4 tells that "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." The terms "publication" and "public display" are defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, and according to 17 U.S.C. § 106, it seems that it only counts as "publication" and "public display" if this is done with the consent of the copyright holder. How can you tell whether this is the case here, that is, how can you tell whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#4 or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Corbis, Getty, and AP and the current image is not one of them. Personally, I would feel like we are on the most solid footing using this photo - http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregonstateuniversity/7173513488/ - which she uses on her own book - http://www.amazon.com/Lost-at-Movies-Pauline-Kael/dp/0714529753/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366057326&sr=1-4&keywords=Pauline+Kael and apimages even has that image being distributed royalty free for purposes of reviewing the book, which means our use of it is definitely not competing with the copyright holder's use of it. --B (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As to WP:NFCC#2, I presume that the original copyrighted media was larger than this 9 KB, 201x235 px file, making it unlikely to replace any market role the original image may have. I too noticed that the image is used on many other websites, though I was unable to locate the original publication of this particular image. The uses that I had a chance to look at ([6][7][8][9][10]) included no attribution and no mention of the copyright holder. WP:NFCC#4 says "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" and I would think that the image's use on those websites would count as publishing or a public display. I assume that you are looking for explicit consent as per the USC definition though. Is it your interpretation of WP:NFCC#4 that evidence of the explicit consent of the copyright holder (e.g. a byline saying Courtesy Kael Estate) is necessary to establish that the image meets the USC definition? When I do take the time to sleuth the origins of older images such as this one, I often find that the image has appeared in print at one point or another, with the consent of the copyright holder. If the image was never released publicly, one has to wonder how it came to be used on those websites. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#4 seems to be taken directly from the law and the law seems to require that it has been published or shown publicly somewhere with the consent of the copyright holder. Think of it like this: you find some unpublished photo, but as it has never been published anywhere before, you can't upload it to Wikipedia. However, you can post it to Flickr or Find a Grave, and now it has suddenly appeared outside Wikipedia before being uploaded here. In that case, it would be trivial to circumvent WP:NFCC#4, and that can't be the idea when the policy was written. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 are you seeing that prior publication is necessary for fair use? Quite the contrary, it says, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." I can think of at least two good reasons for that policy on Wikipedia: (1) as I said above, if we know who the original publisher is, then it is less likely we are using an AP/Getty/etc photo and thus competing with the copyright holder's desire to collect licensing fees for the photo and (2) our policy requires that if you are uploading your own work, you release it under an acceptable free content license and presumably if you are uploading something not previously published, it's your own work. Consider a possible case for fair use: some marginally notable person who died 50 years ago was a member of my church. Nobody has been able to locate a photo of him (free or otherwise), but I found one in a scrapbook in the church library. Nobody has ever published it - it's not a church directory - just a scrapbook. We have no idea who originally took the photo, so getting it donated under an acceptable license is not possible. I can't fathom a reason that we wouldn't want to use it. --B (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that it is harder for a work to qualify for fair use if it has never been published. See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (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:Abdul Jolil.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper website, so presumably violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This file has a non-free use rationale and complies with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#UUI. Neither WP:NFCC#2 nor WP:NFC#UUI §7 prevent the use of images from any newspaper website. The image is not likely to replace the original market role of the copyrighted image due to its low resolution. The guideline WP:NFC#UUI is meant specifically for agencies. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "deceased since 2013"? Really? I have said this eleventy billion times, but I really detest the idea of declaring, He's dead, Jim and uploading some random fair use image. He was a politician. We have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a free image. Simply uploading a fair use one ensures nobody will ever try. He was a member of a political party and he founded a bank. Unless/until someone has contacted both of these organizations to ask for a free photo, you have no basis to claim that we cannot obtain one. --B (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-based reason for deletion? There is no requirement built in to WP:NFCC or WP:NFC#UUI that requires that a person need to have been dead a certain amount of time or that specific organizations need to be contacted. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI §7: you can't use photos from commercial services, and newspaper images are almost always from commercial services. It's the uploader's responsibility to show that the image meets WP:NFCC#2 (see WP:NFCCE), and the uploader hasn't been able to provide any evidence that it isn't from a commercial source. About B's argument, see WP:NFCI §10: non-free photos of deceased people may only be used "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". The problem is that it isn't clearly defined when it isn't reasonable likely to obtain a free image, so it isn't always clear when non-free photos of dead people should be deleted as replaceable unless anyone points at an actual free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not from a commercial service. It is from bdnews24.com. The assertion that 'newspaper images are almost always from commercial services' does not appear to be based in fact or policy. I'm not particularly interested in quibbling over the definition of "reasonably likely", but will volunteer that my own (thorough) search for free images brought up exactly zero replacements. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, B makes a very valid point that should be impressed on uploaders much more strongly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep B makes an invalid point, nowhere in policy. it's dead jim. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 13:28, 21 April 2013 (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:Rodong-sinmun-20-12-2011.jpg

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR is for the article Rodong Sinmun, but it is only used in the article Death and state funeral of Kim Jong-il where it violates WP:NFCC#8. This is essentially a non-free photo of Kim Jong-il plus a short statement saying that the "Great Leader Comrade Kim Jong-il" will have an eternal life (위대한 령도자 김정일동지는 영생할것이다). The text hardly meets the threshold of originality, but is better quoted directly in the article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2013 (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:Through the Looking Glass.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous fair use claim. The image is just a picture of one of the characters in the episode, but if you need to see what he looks like, all you need to do is to go to the article Jack Shephard. Clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- He does not look the same between those two pictures though, does he? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 15 April 2013 (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:Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source. This page credits the article, and maybe also the image, to Agence France-Presse. This page, on the other hand, credits the text, and maybe also the image, to Reuters. If the image is distributed by one of those news agencies, then it violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wire services routinely vacuum up public domain images, and then re-distribute them with the credit line "File photo", or equivalent. That an image is distributed by a wire service, does not establish that they own the image. Finding free images is hard and wire services' customers are prepared to pay a fee for an image, and really couldn't care less that the the image was actually in the public domain. I think we would find that EVERY image distributed by multiple write services is in the public domain.
At the time this image was taken Afghanistan had no domestic intellectual property rights legislation, and was not a signatory to an international intellectual property rights agreement, and had not given any indication that it was going to sign any intellectual property laws or international agreements.
That meant that Afghanistan was one of the half dozen countries where images made by its citizens, in that country, where in the public domain.
In the last year or so Afghanistan has indicated plans to sign intellectual property rights agreements with other countries. When it joins the community of nations that have agreed to honor the intellectual property rights of citizens of other nations, images from there will no longer be in the public domain.
But, until Afghanistan actually signs those agreements images taken by Afghan citizens, in Afghanistan, are in the public domain. So Agence France-Presse, Reuters, AP are all perfectly free to ask their clients to pay them to use their copy, without violating the IP rights of the other wire services.
It is WMF policy to treat images from countries like Afghanistan, that have announced plans to sign intellectual property agreements as if they had already signed the IP agreements. The WMF's lawyers have explained to us that we are free to have more restrictive policies, but that does not alter the legal status of Afghan images. They are still in the public domain. We certainly cannot impose the courtesy we offer to Afghan photographers, to treat their images as if they were not public domain, upon wire services. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Geo Swan. Stefan2 has not established that the file violates WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFC#UUI §7. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFCCE: it is the responsibility of the person wishing to keep the image to show that it doesn't violate WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFC#UUI §7. The person wishing to delete the image only needs to show that no evidence for policy compliance exists. Geo Swan (talk · contribs) hasn't been able to show any evidence that the image wasn't taken by an image agency. The statements about works from Afghanistan automatically being in the public domain is partially wrong; it also requires that the works are first published in Afghanistan, but it is not known when or where the image was first published. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am striking my !vote as I did not realize that the subject was still living. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Stefan2 the exact wording of WP:NFCC#2 follows:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

So, what is a wire services' "original market role", for the images its hosts? They invite those willing to pay a license fee to license that image from them. I suggest that for the wikipedia to violate WP:NFCC#2, we would have to either (1) try to get potential licensees to pay the wikipedia; or we would have to obfuscate the original source for the image, thus interfering with potential licensees finding the wire service, in order to pay a license fee.

I ask Stefan2 if what they are really arguing is that by making what lawyers would regard as a fair use use of an image we are making it easier for those who would re-use those images, without crediting the source we believe to be the original source, we are responsible for the actions of those end-users?

If so I suggest this is a very bad argument. Personally, I release all my images to the public domain. But most of our images here are {{gfdl}} or some variation of {{cc}}. We trust that legitimate end-users will honor their obligation to credit the original creator.

We can't guarantee that the viewers of our {{cc}} images will honor the obligation to credit the original creator. We have no reliable way to monitor whether our end users ever re-use {{cc}} licensed images in ways that don't honor their obligations under the {{cc}} license. Even if we could determine that an image that was being used in a manner inconsistent with {{cc}} had been downloaded from our copy, we would have no way to force them to honor that license.

I suggest exactly the same principle arrives with {{fair use in}} images. The way we use {{fair use in}} images allows any viewer who wants to re-use the image with an easy path to pay the license fee. Alternately, viewers who feel that they too have a valid rationale to claim their re-use of the image qualifies for fair use, have all the information they need to properly attribute the original source.

To agree to Stefan2's interpretation, we would have to agree that viewers looking at the images wit use a {{fair use rationale}} are less honorable, less trustworthy than those who view our {{cc}} images.

To be consistent, with this concern, we could only provide access to public domain images.

Note: some flickr contributors cross-lisence their images under a CC license, and provide access to them through a wire service. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The news services sell their images to websites and printed publications for a fee. Using the same image on a website (such as Wikipedia) without paying a fee is in direct competition with the news service. Also, a Wikipedia-only permission doesn't help as anyone should be able to use the Wikipedia article. Also, the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §10 (it doesn't seem to be a historical photo). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here.

Modern states grant certain limited rights to inventors, authors, composers, photographers, for a single reason -- creative invention and expression is believed to serve the public interest.

Modern states allow fair use of material that would normally be protected by copyright, under certain limited conditions. When the conditions for fair use are present, it over-rides copyright.

Stefan2, your position seems to be from the point of view that copyright holders right to make money is absolute, and that no WMF project can ever interfere with that right to profit.

Specifically, above you wrote:

The news services sell their images to websites and printed publications for a fee. Using the same image on a website (such as Wikipedia) without paying a fee is in direct competition with the news service.

When one of our readers sees a non-free image that we have used -- and realizes that they too have a context where they could re-use the image and legitimately claim fair use -- we have not interfered with the wire service's "market role". Our reader's legitimate fair use of images is protected. If our readers re-use the image in a context where their fair use claim is also legitimate, they have no more obligation to pay the wire service than we did.

I suggest we are not responsible if one of our readers re-uses a non-free image they downloaded from the wikipedia, republishes it, claiming fair use, but on purpose or through a good faith mistake, their fair use claim is not tenable. Many of our images are under the {{gfdl}}, or {{cc share alike}}, or similar free license, that requires attribution. We are not responsible if our readers don't understand or can't be bothered to correctly attribute images they downloaded from here. Why would we be more responsible for readers who don't understand or can't be bothered to understand when they can or can't re-use an image we were using under a legitimate fair use claim? Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...

Original market role: Selling the picture for display on websites and printed publications.
Wikipedia's role: Displaying the picture on websites and printed publications.

In exactly which way are you claiming that Wikipedia isn't replacing the original market role of the image? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (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:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why we need a non-free picture of Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe in the infobox. We've got free pictures of both of them. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official poster promoting the fight, pretty much every boxing match article has the official poster.Beast from da East (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But are posters something that people would use for identification of the match? It's not like a book cover that you would see whenever you pick up a book to read. Besides, if you were to look at the match today, you would probably get some video recording which doesn't include the poster. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced of any need for a visual "identification" of a boxing fight. Boxing fights are exhaustively identified by the names of the two contestants, the date of the fight, and perhaps the place and the organization that sponsored it. I don't see that these events are consistently accompanied by the visual presence of any one item of "cover art" in the mainstream media coverage of them, nor that our readers would be likely to consistently associate such an event with such an image, nor that the visual presence of such an image would be necessary for our readers to understand which event we're talking about. In this respect, there is no analogy between the use of cover art for books or movies and the use of posters for athletic events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I for one, am totally convinced that there is a need for visual identification for boxing events. It's no different then book covers, movie posters or other posters (such as professional wrestling pay-per-view poster). This poster is used to identify the Holyfield-Bowe fight, I see nothing wrong with it. Beast from da East (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would anyone ever use this poster for identification of a sports event? Why would anyone look at a poster instead of looking at random photos of the match or a video or sound recording of it or a textual representation of it? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (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:Fringe Olivias Fight.png

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 per nom. INeverCry 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. You don't need to see a picture of the doppelgänger in order to tell that she has one. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of use section provides a detailed argument for why this file meets WP:NFCC#8. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of use section in the FUR is particularly faulty: it only tells why the image is important to the episode, not why the image is important to the article. However, all information contained in the image can easily be replaced by text and thus violates WP:NFCC#1: "A doppelgänger tried to strangle a character". If you need to see what the character looks like, go to the article Olivia Dunham (see WP:NFC#UUI §6). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2013 (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.