Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8

File:Ralph Henry Barbour.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 ⚡ 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo being used under a claim of fair use of a prolific American author who wrote numerous books between 1899 and his death in 1944. We certainly have a reasonable expectation that there is a public domain photo of him out there. Heck, this one might be public domain. You could try emailing the blogger where you found the image rather than just uploading it and slapping a fair use tag on it. He might be able to tell you where it is originally from. Surely, at some point, his picture was published prior to 1923, or any time in a publication whose copyright was not renewed. We have a reasonable expectation of receiving a public domain image and so using this one is impermissible. B (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this sort of nomination is just plain silly. If you think a free photo exists... go find it from wherever you think it may be hiding and upload it. If and until then, this image can stay. In addition, in 1923 Ralph Henry Barbour would have been 53 years old. The man in the photo looks pretty darn youthful for 53 so there's a really good chance this a free image anyway. Let's please excecise a little more sense and discretion in these deletion nominations. I know deleting stuff is great fun... but let's not get carried away and make an annoying hobby of it. – JBarta (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that for it to be public domain, it needs to have been published pre-1923, not just created. But in any event, the Foundation's licensing policy says that if we have a "reasonable expectation" of receiving a free image, we are not permitted to use a fair use image. We certainly have a "reasonable expectation" of receiving a free photo for someone who was a prolific public figure in the United States during this time period. Fair use photos of living people are presumed replaceable, but the reverse is not true - fair use photos of dead people are NOT presumed irreplaceable. The claim that the image is irreplaceable must be a reasonable one, not a "well, I googled it and came up empty". --B (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here - [1], for example, is one that MIGHT be public domain (we would have to ask - it depends on whether or not this photo was ever published). But at least with this one, we can provide an actual source. --B (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, Cambridge Tribune, Volume XXXIX, Number 41, 9 December 1916 has an unquestionably public domain photo of him - [2]. As does Cambridge Tribune, Volume XXXVI, Number 42, 13 December 1913 [3]. As does Cambridge Tribune, Volume XXIX, Number 42, 15 December 1906 [4] As does Cambridge Tribune, Volume XXXII, Number 41, 11 December 1909 [5]. And [6]. These aren't as good quality, but they are unquestionably public domain. And I bet if you tried, you could find even more photos of him. But what happens, is you just declare "can't be done" and that's that. --B (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's wonderful that you found a more suitable image. Are you going to upload it? Or are you looking for someone else to do that as well? I understand what you're saying... I just don't agree with it. A whole bunch of editors here add as they are able. If you can do better or improve on what's been done, do so. In other words, run around fixing things instead of running around breaking things and wagging your finger at other editors because they didn't find what you found or do what you did. Next time if you think a more suitable image can be found, just find it, upload it, edit the article and move on. – JBarta (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want to, you are welcome to do so. If not, I might do it the next time I am on a PC (I'm on an iPad at the moment). But this is missing the point - the point is that this image never met our fair use requirements, whether we had actual proof of the existence of a replacement or not. --B (talk) 23:53, 10 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:Delia Akeley.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 ⚡ 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A previous photo in this title was deleted at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_17#File:Delia_Akeley.jpg because we demonstrated that public domain photos exist. Rather than respect that decision, Slowking4 uploaded a different photo of the same person. B (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no demonstration that a free photo exists; rather your flights of fancy doubt that one doesn't. prove a free photo exists by uploading one. as we can see in this photo, family photos can exist that remain in copyright; prove that the existing photos in books are free and not under copyright. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by no proof. I gave you a direct link to one. For example, there's a low-quality photo of her on page number 181 of [7] (page 239 in the online viewer, page 180 of the printed page). I would bet that if you find a paper copy of this book, you can get a higher quality scan. This is the very definition of replaceable. Stefan2 gave you two others - page 21 of [8] and somewhere in [9] (not sure exactly where this second one was). That's three public domain images. Yes, the quality is less and to obtain something better, we would probably want an original paper copy or microfilm from the local library. Here's one that's decent quality - [10]. Stefan2 is better at this stuff than I am so you may want to ask him, but I looked at [11] and didn't see this newspaper's copyright renewed ... so I'm pretty sure this photo is public domain. That's four public domain photos. I'm not quite sure what more proof you require that at least one exists (not that I even have to prove that one does exist - just that one can be "reasonably expected" to exist ... but the fact that it does exist necessarily means that we can reasonably expect it to exist). --B (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If public domain images exist, this must be deleted as per policy. We do not reward editing against consensus and/or policy, in fact they usually result in sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 8 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:Treetop Flyers 1b.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 as F4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OB Liza Radley (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what was it obsoleted by? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete low res version of File:Treetop Flyers1.jpg -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G7. Nominated by author of the only substantial content. —teb728 t c 07:46, 9 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:Treetop Flyers1.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 as F4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OB Liza Radley (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what was it obsoleted by? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G7. Nominated by author of the only substantial content. —teb728 t c 07:47, 9 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:VADM David W. Bagley, USN.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 Legoktm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altered/doctored photograph with no historic merit. Based on this photo, the linked example being sold on eBay in March 2013 but appearing to be US Navy sourced from 1944. Property of Antique Photo World, apparently no previous publication of photo. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has historic merit IMO... is a nice photo for the article. It's a shame that Centpacrr felt the need to resort to duplicity in uploading it. At the very least, the original with source should have been uploaded first, then the altered derivative uploaded so that everything is transparent. Then an argument might be made that it's PD-no notice or was in fact an official Navy photo. Never being published is a dicey thing to prove one way or another, and I would have supported simply assuming it was published somewhere and moving on. Antique Photo World might not actually be the copyright holder... just the current possessor of the photo. I hope Centpacrr will try to show that in this upload and refrain from doing this sort of thing in the future. – JBarta (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better link to the original photo. After seeing the original, it seems to me to be legitimately PD-Navy. Binksternet, would you agree? – JBarta (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already indicated that I think the image is likely from the US Navy in 1944, though the separation between the typewritten note and the photo itself is somewhat suspicious. It is odd that the Navy would approve a portrait with the face straight ahead but the eyes looking to the side. But overall, the Navy connection seems most likely. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is derived from a PD image produced in 1944 by the US Navy as a publicity photo as indicated by the notice attached to the original which reads "Submitting a photograph taken last week of Admiral Bagley for future use by you. Please do not use any of the old photographs you have of Admiral Begley. E.D. ASHTON, Photographic Officer". Antiquephotoworld.com does not own the copyright of this PD image anymore than it owns that of this image from which Bagley, David Harrington.JPG was derived about which no objection has been raised. Both are being used as an infobox images. The only alteration to the original image is to add a neutral background in place of a curtain, window, and radiator which are of no value to (and distract from) the subject of the image. As a derivative of a Government produced publicity photo, the original is in the public domain irrespective of whether or not it was ever "published" as by definition it was PD when created under 17 USC §101 & 105 because it is "a work of the United States Government" and thus is not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law. Centpacrr (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the allowable modes of image retouching and alteration include cropping; corrections to contrast, brightness and color; and fixing obvious blemishes. The changing of the background or foreground to create a different context should never be allowed. Such images would encourage a false understanding of historicity. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is being used in an infobox to illustrate the article's subject, VADM D.W. Bagley. The replaced background (curtains, a window, and a radiator) are irrelevant to the subject, visually distracting, and their replacement by curtains present no "false understanding of historicity" of what the image is meant to illustrate which is the solely the subject individual. The neutral background in no way implies that the subject is "an historical myth or legend" and thus is in no way misleading. Centpacrr (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: Changes in background by removing people, objects, etc is done on WP all the time in order to make the actual subject of the image look better. See for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Centpacrr (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the addition of background or foreground elements, but I am not against the removal of such elements to create a context-free image. Some of the images in your example horrify me and I would not have accepted the request. Removing one person in a group of four to make a group of three is terrible idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of background elements (curtains, a blocked window and a radiator) to create a "context-free" image is exactly what I did with this image but instead of just making the background black or grey I used neutral dark curtains which is a very common background used by the US military services for these types of publicity photos. As for the removing of the person from the group picture I would not have done that either, but apparently nobody has ever complained about it. Centpacrr (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, I think you should exercise more discretion in your alterations. Personally I think the background swap was totally unnecessary. That said, the BIGGEST problem I see here is that your changes were, for all practical purposes, undocumented. Way unencyclopedic if you ask me. Others had to chase down the original image and provide a proper source. This isn't Centpacrr-pedia... there are others involved. And providing a trail that others can follow and see what you did is not only good manners, but it's in keeping with verifiability. Even the source you added after being prompted made no mention of the actual source image you used. – JBarta (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original image uploaded to Commons (cropped and cleaned up, but otherwise unaltered) as File:VADM David Worth Bagley, USN.jpg. Seeing as the original file is perfectly suitable and a substitute background is not really necessary, I would say delete this image. If Centpacrr wishes to upload his derivative to Commons (and link it to the original as such) that's his prerogative. – JBarta (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image description page completed to include source information. I could upload it to Commons as a derivative, but I don't really see a lot of usefulness in doing so... so I won't. Since the source and license issue here is resolved, I guess the only thing left is whether or not this derivative should stay here or not. If Centpacrr really wants this derivative kept, I think it would be best to upload it to Commons as a derivative of the original where it can live happily and anyone can use it if they wish. If not, I see no reason to keep it here. – JBarta (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I see no reason to keep it here" is not an appropriate grounds for deletion for an image as any editor could say that about any image on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about unused and obsolete? For the third time... it would be best to upload this file to Commons as a derivative if you think it should be kept. That's what Commons is for. I understand you don't like Commons and to a point I sympathize with you. But that's no reason to resist uploading anything to Commons. Go with the flow instead of always against it. You'd save yourself a lot of aggravation... not to mention other editors a whole lot of time. If you had uploaded the original file to Commons in the first place, properly sourced, then uploaded your derivative properly, (all which you know how to do) none of this would have happened. If anything, there might have simply been a discussion over which image (the original or the derivative) to use in the article. But no... you had to go this route with an incomplete and half-truth upload and make a mess for others to clean up. C'mon... let's see some of that collaborative acumen you keep bragging about. Deeds... not words. – JBarta (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple, faithful alterations (e.g. cropping or highlighting what's already there) are great, but something like this is deceptive and doesn't belong on any WMF site except as an example of how photos can be doctored. This is close to qualifying for speedy deletion as a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doctored photo. A simple background could have replaced it (flat white, flat black, transparent), but not this false setting. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To keep everybody happy I have replaced the derivative image with a version with the original background (with better cropping, cleanup, flyspecking, etc) so that it now meets all the criteria that were previously objected to. Centpacrr (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the new image uploaded by Centpacrr. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're back to the unaltered background However, this is a free file. Free files should be uploaded to Commons. This image is already on Commons. If Centpacrr would like his latest edit to be kept, he should upload that to Commons as a derivative or other version. As a free file, there is no reason for it to remain here. – JBarta (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file IS in Commons here and has been since last night. Centpacrr (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marked this file {{Now Commons}}. We should be done here. – JBarta (talk) 19:24, 9 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.