Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 2

Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg – Deletions overturned. There is substantial dispute over whether these images qualify as promotional, but the supporters of the images have produced evidence suggesting that this is the case. Procedurally, the deletions (taken from IfDs that were never closed?) are flawed; substantively, the consensus below is that they are likely inappropriate. This topic is ripe for further discussion at a proper IfD. – Xoloz 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Two archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. Deleted in both cases silently without closing the discussion, or reviewing the consensus. Jheald 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information. When challenged, the deleting admin has given the explanation:

I believe both images readily failed WP:NFCC #8 and their sources were from other web sites and not necessarily press kits as required for publicity images. Please request a deletion review if you think there is an error. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But NFCC #8 (significance) was not raised in either discussion. We generally agree that it is significant to show a major movie depiction for a fictional character. It is therefore hard to see how a image of Harry Potter for that article's main infobox would fail significance, nor illustrating the movie version of Storm in Storm (comics).

The images (Harry Potter, Storm) can be found at IMDB in their section "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" [1] [2]) (as noted in the IfDs). They can also be seen at other sites which recycle the content of official press kits, eg MovieWeb [3] [4], or Comics Continuum [5] ("20th Century Fox has provided The Continuum with large versions of the character shots from X3"). A close derivative of the Storm image is also available from the official X3 site.

The question to be decided here was WP:NFCC #2:

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.

It is clear that these were not limited-release single site exclusive images. They are the very paradigm of broad release standard publicity images. WP's use of them will in no way commercially impact that role.

Therefore, as I put it above, these two images represented archetypal cases of appropriate fair use of movie studio publicity images. The closing admin's silent decision to delete them was perverse. The decision on the Harry Potter image was particularly perverse, in view of the strong balance to keep. But the deletion of the Storm image was also perverse. Both deletions should be annulled, and a clear precedent established. Jheald 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From closing admin) These are images that cannot verifiably be traced to a press kit and are typical of images that have been deleted in the past and upheld on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_4#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg for a similar example. -Nv8200p talk 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) we don't have to show the image was from a press kit; what matters is whether it is likely to supplant the original market role of the original copyrighted media. (ii) Brunokirby2.jpg looks mis-decided, particularly in view of this image of an AP screen saying "Special Instructions: (...) ** NO SALES**". But, as per (i), that's not the test anyway. Jheald 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunokirby2.jpg wasn't mis-decided. It was deleted on ifd and endorsed on drv because no one could prove the image really came from a press kit. The flickr web-shot you show as evidence was produced afterwards (and it's unclear if it would had prevented the image from being deleted). --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No Sales" would mean that it is not available for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia can be reused by commercial ventures. Corvus cornix 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "No sales" meant the users didn't have to pay AP for the shots. Jheald 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole idea of labelling images as "non-free", is that the non-free stuff can be stripped out before being passed to commercial ventures? Carcharoth 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who would do that stripping? There is no "passing" process, a commercial venture just takes what they want. Corvus cornix 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was imprecise. Because we carefully label non-free stuff as 'non-free', it is theoretically possible for an ethical commercial venture to do such stripping. If they don't, it is on their heads, not ours. The "reused by commercial ventures" bit applies to people releasing things for "non-commercial uses" - we can't accept that. Free or fair use only. Carcharoth 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - can't they be replaced by screenshots, which would be a much smaller percentage of a copyrighted work? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a screenshot analogous to taking an interior frame from a comic, rather than an intentionally pre-released cover? Our comics guidelines recommend the latter. Jheald 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Agree with VO. Plus, I would like proof of press kit sourcing. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much more evidence do you reasonably expect to see, beyond what I've already set out above from IMDB, MovieNet and Comics Continuum? Besides, what matters here is not press kits, it's NFCC #2. Jheald 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being on many websites is evidence of nothing. Show just one website, from the copyright holder, where it's made clear that this image is intended to be reused by the media. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn If ind the argument convincing. DGG (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Like many many other cases of images believed to be promotional just because they can be found all around the net. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Those advocating for deletion continue to indicate they have no real problem with the material, just its distribution -- as though a "free" picture of Storm, or Harry Potter, could exist. They can't, and as there is ample evidence that these photos were provided for publicity -- for example, their being listed on a movie promotional website under the heading "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" -- they should remain. Again, to be clear: there can be NO free image of Storm, no free image of Harry Potter, so I'm not really sure what those who want these pictures deleted would like them replaced with. No matter where the pictures come from, no matter what website they're found on, there is NO DEBATE on who the copyright holder is of the PICTURES THEMSELVES. And that should be the only concern when it comes to whether or not we're fairly using that copyrighted material; it doesn't matter one whit, no matter what Abu says, whether or not the company distributed the material for reuse similar to ours. At the end of the day, we know who the copyright holder is, and that's what our policies are most concerned with, not what the distribution method of that material is. Also - it is HILARIOUS that the Bruno Kirby case is being cited as precedent; I highly advise those interested to check out the full story behind that image, and its improper deletion for lack of "proof" that it was, in fact, promotional. It's truly amazing, the blinders some people are willing to put on... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Free images of modern fictional characters do not exist, and demanding studio tracing proof is just trying to be difficult. Alientraveller 09:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've spent a lot of time thinking about these situations recently, and the editors !voting Overturn here seem to share the conclusion that I came to--that the copyright holders (studios, publishers, labels) really aren't going to produce free-and-clear versions of these images no matter how much pressure we try to apply to them to do so, or how many images we delete in vain attempts to twist their giant arms. Although I certainly wouldn't have expected to, now that it's begun to happen, I now feel like the mass deletions of PD and Fair Use images recently have resulted in damage to the project, resulting in a less interesting and useful encyclopaedia. Even in a print encyclopaedia, I like being able to see images of the subjects of articles, and believe (after some reflection) that such images do, in fact, help me to better understand the subject than words alone could have. I don't think that we're going to get a GFDL image of Harry Potter any time soon, and I think that we're tilting at windmills if we believe otherwise. These images were clearly intended by their copyright holders to be reproduced as widely as possible (which is, in fact, their reason for existing), and I see no reason not to keep these. We aren't exploiting anyone's copyrights; we're using the images exactly as they were intended. Heather 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Overturn votes above, from Heather, Jenolen and Alientraveller, seem to misunderstand the reason for deleting this image. Nobody here is claiming that we could produce a free alternative for this image. Indeed, nobody here would oppose the use of a non-free movie screenshot to illustrate this fictional character.

The real reason for deleting this image (that have been repeatedly misinterpreted in the overturn arguments) is that the whole fair use rationale for this non-free image is based on the assumption that this image was released by the copyright holder to be used by the media (promo material), but still, no proof have been provided for that. Being on many websites is no such proof (this is, indeed, the most common misconception on images uploaded to Wikipedia).

Dozen of images like these are deleted on IFD. We had a recent clean up on Startrek "promotional" images, then Dawnson's Creek' images... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 August 2007

Two things - "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" isn't proof enough for you that these are released by the studios for publicity purposes? And secondly, you're simply making up a new policy here - the fair use rationale in NO WAY requires that only media that is "released for media use" can be faily used! This fundamental misunderstanding of how fair use works - and the misprioritzation on the distribution methods of modern "press kit" images at the expense of the rock-solid knowledge of who the actual copyright holder is - continues to taint these deletions. The Star Trek and Dawson's Creek ones were wrong... and several hundred wrongs don't make these deletions right. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy or in fair use law (two very different things) is there expressed a "preference" of some kind for screenshots over staged publicity photos. What's happened is that two or three editors, working with two or three admins, have decided to enforce their own set of standards. Turns out, I'm not the only one who's getting a little tired of it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many ifds and deletions reviews make the startrek and Dawson's Creek images to be deleted, by you still think they were wrongly deleted. I don't think I'm be able to convince you of anything you don't previously agree with. No point in discussing. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my ambiguity; I had just assumed that it was understood that the current trend of deleting PD and Fair Use images was rooted in the assumption that doing so would cause the copyright holders to produce free versions for us (an assumption which I've concluded to be erroneous, as others seem to agree). That's how it's been explained, for whatever it's worth. At any rate, I don't think that the promotional status of these images is at all questionable--and even if it were, as Doctor Sunshine noted, the appropriate response would have been retagging, not deletion. Heather 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn If an editor is unconvinced that these two images are publicity photos—though it seems like wikilawyering in this case—then it should have been switched to the {{Template:Non-free fair use in}} tag and the copyright holders contacted for clarification. The promotional materials tags seem legitimate to me but perhaps I'm putting too much faith the press. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what would be the obligatory fair use rationale accompanying the {{Non-free fair use in}}?
1. "This image is copyrighted by DC Comics and we don't know for sure what was it's intended use."
2. "Maybe it's to be reused by the media, maybe it's to be reused by DC's partners, maybe it's only intended improve DC's official website with exclusive material, or maybe it's something else. We don't know."
3. "Anyway, we believe that our use does not compete with the use intended by the copyright holder, whatever it may be."
4. "And, although we won't go into details let alone provide evidence, this is a historically significant image of a famous individual".
The point is, without verifiable information on what the copyright holder intended for this image, we can never say it passes WP:NFCC#2. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you finally have a good explanation as to how "intent of the copyright holder" has anything at all to do with the fair use of copyrighted material for which no free equivalent exists or could be created, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear it. As it is, since there are types of material for which free versions can never be created, you're now asking for us to deleting things under the somewhat paradoxical standard, "we don't know what the intent of the copyright holder is," when, in reality, at some point, there's going to be a use of copyrighted material. You apparently think fair use should only apply to material that copyright holders want to be used; this is incorrect, and this has been pointed out to you several times. When it comes to this part of copyright law, you simply have it wrong, and your continual refusal to acknowledge as such should be addressed as part of your Arbcom mandated counselling. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a similar rational to any other article on a fictional character? Where else could the IMDb and Yahoo Movies be getting these images?[6][7] Surely the purpose of these images falls under the obvious/common knowledge? If you have reason to doubt their legitimacy please contact the studios, these movies sites or the FBI. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Yahoo itself, these images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs)
...Yes... continue... If you were trying to imply that they were uploaded by someone other than Yahoo!, who do you think that was? Again, if you don't understand what these photos are for, email the studios. They'll tell you exactly what everyone here has been telling you. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, somehow I posted an incomplete comment. I believe I was going to say that according to yahoo, those images come from their partners, and the media is not welcome to reuse it for promotional (or any other) purposes. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to section 9b of the link you posted, that's not the case at all. To quote, "With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available..." Anyway, to steer this back on point, and to repeat myself yet again: contact the studios or substitute a general fair use tag. I'd do it myself if I thought you were taking this seriously. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is related to photos "you submit", i.e., content posted on yahoo by its users (like material in Yahoo Groups, etc.). --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I have this right. The link you provided says the exact opposite of what you said their policy is and I'm supposed to take your word that you have it right and the policy page you linked to has it wrong? In other words, you're allowed to ignore all the evidence provided in this review while I'm expected to take your word for it? (By the way, since these images weren't submitted by "you" the users, can I assume that you do believe the were submitted by the studios? To, perhaps, promote their films?) Do you have a link that supports your claim? And I don't know why you're fixating on Yahoo! I named them to add to the examples at the head of this review. You've really lost me here. Are you not paying attention or are you just having a laugh? Doctor Sunshine talk 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do they policy says that's "exact opposite" of what I said? The 9.b passage you cite is part of "9. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE", that refers to "Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service". I don't know what does it have to do with this image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what the policy has to do with thesse images... why did you post the link? Now, please, address any of my points at all and you'll have made me a happy man. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why can't these images be replaced by screenshots, which would be a tiny percentage of a copyrighted work per WP:NFCC#3a, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighed photo? They would serve the encyclopedic purpose just as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the odd thing about that - you're actually advocating using a part of the copyrighted material that studios are actively trying to sell - a part of their movie (albeit a very small part) - as opposed to using the copyrighted material that they are literally giving away and saying, "please, use this." It seems to me that if we're so concerned with NFCC#2, and the "respect for commercial opportunities," we should, by practice if not by policy, favor keeping the type of material that is widely distributed for media use, such as these promotional photos, and not encourage users to make their own frame-grabs from what is, at the end of the day, the actual product being sold. Or - and here's a thought - is the difference between the two so small as to make no difference? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're begging the question. All we're asking for is some concrete evidence that this image is really "material that they are literally giving away and saying, "please, use this"". No one has provided any such evidence. Being in many websites is not an evidence that the copyright holder is giving it away and saying, "please, use this". --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You literally have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Which part do you dispute? A) That these are promotional photos. B) That promotional photos are distributed for wide reuse. C) That movies, from which screenshots come, are "sold," both in theatres and on a variety of home video formats. Or perhaps, D) Given that studios vigorously enforce a variety of copyright related concerns, you believe that for some reason, they haven't gotten around to asking the IMBD, one of the most popular film websites in the world, to remove the photos currently found in the section entitled "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends." I mean, seriously, I hope this addressed in your Arbcom-mandated counselling, because it's ridiculous, the arguments you're making here. It appears that you believe "D" to be true. If so, all I can say is that if the think the IMBD is wrong, or lying, when they post photos labelled "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. In which case, you should knock it off. There's no question about the source of the photos, nor of who the copyright holder is. Your concerns are, as usual, completely unfounded, and, in fact, contradicted by the evidence at hand. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dispute "A)" (and I'm completely astonished that you haven't understood that yet). --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jenolen, I'm asking you politely to stop making the inflammatory references to so-called "Arbcom-mandated counseling". Abu's actions and techniques were overwhelmingly upheld by the Arbcom. And you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader, not on the challenger. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, Abu did have an Arbcom case, and yes, the result of that case was the he was supposed to seek counseling about image-related issues. What's controversial or inflammatory about that? It's obvious, from what he/she is posting here, he/she has a poor grasp of either reality, fair use law, or some combination of the two. Also - forget abstract concepts like "The burden of proof is on the uploader"; please address the specifics of this case. And in this case, are you unconvinced by the proof that has been offered, namely that these photos are featured on one of the most popular movie websites, IMDB.com, under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends"... I want to make it clear -- do you believe that these photos are not, in fact, publicity stills? That seems to fail the "laugh" test. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. The outcome of my Arb case was that the clerks counseled me to be more patient with users who question my tagging of images, like you. Considering the amount of times I have to repeat the same arguments to you, I believe I'm already doing some progress. Anyway, I don't know why are we discussion about me here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, at least we're making some progress. Odd as this may seem, and believe me, I'm as baffled as you are, you chose "A" above. Now, please explain why you believe that photos found many places on the 'net, INCLUDING IMDB.com under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" are not promotional photos, as defined by Wikipedia policy. And would you support redefining Wikipedia policies, where unclear, to indicate that the IMDB's "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", both specifically and generally, are fundamentally identical to "promotional photos." If not, why not? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's really incredible how you're still "baffled" about that after taking part in so many idf and drv discussions where such images where deleted for the same reason. Responding to your question, I refer you to my very first endorse comment above, made 3 days ago. Just because an image can be found all around the net, it doesn't mean it's promotional material. Instead of one hundred links to sites using the image, provide just one link to an official presskit from the copyright holder, where it welcomes the reuse of this image by the media. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question at all, and instead, repeated your "made up" criteria that we must somehow consider whether or not reuse of this copyrighted material is "welcomed" by the copyright holder. Nobody cares whether or not it's "welcomed." So I'll try again. Please answer these questions: Now, please explain why you believe that photos found many places on the 'net, INCLUDING IMDB.com under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends" are not promotional photos, as defined by Wikipedia policy. And would you support redefining Wikipedia policies, where unclear, to indicate that the IMDB's "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends", both specifically and generally, are fundamentally identical to "promotional photos." If not, why not? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To undestand the ""welcomed" by the copyright holder" thing, I point you to another comment I made on this thread 3 days ago (please, make sure you read and understad every comment on a thread before posing questions. It's tiresome to walk in circles). About the imdb thing, imdb is not a press kit nor a similar source. It doesn't hold the copyright for the images it hosts. I'm aware of any Wikipedia policy we would need to change to establish that (unless you volunteer to write a pointy essay). --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement, in US Law or Wikipedia policy, that a copyright holder must "welcome" the use of their copyrighted material, in order for a fair use claim to be made. You have NEVER provided a link to a piece of law, a Wikipedia policy, anything -- you just believe this to be true. You are, sadly, wrong about this -- but refuse to change your view in the face of the facts. Which is fine... that's you're right, too. But saying the world is flat long enough and loud enough don't make it so... and you would be well advised to immediately reconsider any part of your "Deletion Logic Routine" which involves the copyright holder "welcoming" the reuse of their material. It simply has nothing to do with anything. As for your view that, the whole fair use rationale for this non-free image is based on the assumption that this image was released by the copyright holder to be used by the media (promo material), but still, no proof have been provided for that. Being on many websites is no such proof ... I know and you know there's a difference between "Bob'z Moovie Blog" and IMDB.com. Of course, anyone can post anything on any random website... but IMDB is not some random copyright-violating website, and you know that. And, if IMBD wants to post photos under the heading "Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends," then you need to understand that those are actual promotional photos... Every time you argue otherwise, you hurt your own cause, because you continue to show that you're unable to handle this very simple concept - there is a big difference between copyrighted material, and the distribution methods of copyrighted material. The whole "Yahoo!" detour above has no bearing on this deletion debate... but it's the kind of thing you keep returning to, apparently unable to separate content from its digital distribution methods. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn WP:NFCC #8 is crap and a poor "reason" to delete an image. (Note: reason is in quotes as there appears to be no reason involved). Jim62sch 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg – Deletion overturned, in light of new evidence regarding image's status. Relisting is at editorial discretion. – Xoloz 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The images for deletion discussion was cut short in an unclear state when the deleting admin found the picture on the Corbis website (see Corbis). Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument indicated that the presence of an image on the website of a major image library is not in and of itself sufficient for deletion. Our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima uses Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which can be found on the Corbis website. The previously linked discussion contains other examples. I therefore ask that the deletion be overturned and the discussion restarted to allow a fuller discussion of these issues for this particular image. Carcharoth 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) More then adequate time was allowed for discussion before the image was deleted. WP:NFCC #2 requires a respect for commercial opportunities and this has been interpreted in the past to pretty much delete any Corbis/Getty image and most news agency images. After looking at the way the image was used in any of the articles, I did not think the use of the image added siginificantly to the article either.. This is my interpretation of Wikipedia's overly restrictive non-free content policy. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point. You found it on the Corbis website and appeared to conclude from this that it "a Corbis image and so we must delete it". It is patently clear that this logic is false. If all the other admins participating in image reviews have this idea of image rights, then we are in trouble. There are many old images for which copyright status is highly unclear. Merely being sold today through commercial companies (who often buy up old archives of photos) does not mean that they know any more about the copyright status of these old images than we do. They are taking the position that until someone turns up to claim rights on an image, they will go ahead and sell it anyway. Conversely, we should take the position that until someone turns up and claims it, we can use it under fair-use if it will contribute to an article (I accept that it may not in this case, but that is a discussion we should be having at IfD). What we should not do (and what you did in this case, through no fault of your own), is assume that because an old photo is being sold by Corbis and Getty and other photo libraries, that those photo libraries have exclusive rights over the photo. Do you understand the point I am making here? I am saying that you (and others) should not be saying "since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2" - exactly the same argument can be used to delete hundreds of photos - did you know that Corbis (and many other photo libraries) sell free pictures? They add value to them, but ultimately they charge for being the middleman for people who don't have the time to go and get the free images themselves. I'm not saying this is a free picture, but I am saying that an image being on the Corbis website (or any other website) doesn't automatically mean WP:NFCC #2 is being violated. Every admin dealing with image deletion needs to understand this. It is not easy, but then no-one ever said image rights were an easy thing to understand. Carcharoth 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you show that this image is not copyrighted to Corbis, you'll still have to show what's the copyright status for this image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but should that discussion take place here, or in a new IfD? Carcharoth 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We might begin a preliminary analysis of the Planck-Einstein image by noting that copyrighted works originating in Germany expire after 70 years, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Example_cases . The photograph was taken in Germany in 1930, and the previously displayed image of the photograph did not appear to come through Bettman/Corbis, but rather from a German-language website if I recall correctly. In any case, this photograph exists in forms other than the one displayed at Corbis. ... Kenosis 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 70 years pma, not 70 years after moment of creation of the work. Jkelly 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 70 years after the death of the author. -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. So we have some research to do. Appreciate it. ... Kenosis 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to square one on this issue. The reference to 70 years p.m.a. requires a public claim of authorship. Lacking such a claim of authorship, any copyright lapses 70 years after the date of creation. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. On the evidence we have thus far, this photograph is very much in the public domain. ... Kenosis 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, here's an initial lead to a German-based website that attributes the photo to Einstein, A Centenary Volume, ed. A.P. French, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979, p58, which in turn attributes it to "AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection". Plainly this photograph is quite well traveled and there is no single copyright holder that's clearly disclosed. I'll look for more info and report back later. ... Kenosis 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... And Here the photograph is for sale, but is said to have been scanned at the American Institute of Physics. So thus far we have two sellers of different manifestations of the photograph, neither of which has disclosed how they obtained rights to it or what the rights are claimed to be. Credit in this case is given to "AIP [American Institute of Physics] Emilio Segre Visual Archives, Fritz Reiche Collection" The price for obtaining a print is said to be a "service fee", presumably meaning that the buyer is merely paying the requested price of producing the print. ... Kenosis 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I called the librarian at the AIP, based on the information at this page. The archivist is away until next Monday. He may be able to provide more specific information about the particular copy of the image they hold in their archive. Even at this stage, it is my initial impression that a low-resolution reproduction of the image, depending on where it was obtained, is likely meet all four fair-use criteria as well as the 10 WP criteria. But a clearer response from the AIP will need to wait until next week. Perhaps others will be able to provide further info about all the copies of this photograph that were initially circulated in 1930 and later, and if anyone has ever asserted a claim of sole copyright on it. I also haven't been able to confirm who the second Mrs. Einstein, who died in the 1980s, might have given rights to their copy of the image. Perhaps it will suffice to say, at the moment, that copies of this photograph have traveled far and wide through multiple routes with no indication thus far that anyone has ever claimed exclusive rights to the image. ... Kenosis 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic research, Kenosis! I wish we had 100 of you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can do the investigation here, let's do it. If DRV regulars would rather us not hijack the page for a licensing investigation, then overturn and relist because NFCC #2 was clearly the wrong reason. (Note that I argued for deletion of the image in the first place.) howcheng {chat} 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of putting it back up as a still-active IfD and just letting the consensus take its course at this point. Nv8200p gave a reasonable justification for closing based upon Criteria for Speedy Deletion #12 and evidence of display and rights claimed by Corbis per NFCC #2. But it seems fairly obvious at this point that the image is quite likely in the public domain and that no one of the routes it has taken (the Einstein, Planck and Bohr families/friends/colleagues at an absolute minimum) has visibly claimed any kind of exclusive copyright on the image. It's virtually impossible to conclusively prove a negative here, but the evidence thus far appears to indicate multiple routes of dissemination and no visible exclusive copyright holder. So, if Nv8200p is agreeable at this stage, it seems to me it can (a) be closed as a "keep", (b) re-opened to continue discussion, or (c) relisted from scratch. Or it can be left here for presentation of any further evidence and "voting"-- personally I have no strong preference except for a reasonable outcome consistent with the evidence we find. ... Kenosis 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not that easy. The work was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, so the copyright term in the USA is 95 years. See the various "published outside the USA" categories in this table. [8] -- Jheald 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear where you get the 1996 date from. Could you clarify and explain this, please? Also, do you have to be able to indicate authorship of the photograph? That is what Kenosis is saying above - the authorship was not given, so it lapsed 70 years after creation. And finally, can you re-confirm that none of this uncertainty about copyright status affects the possibility of using the image under fair-use. (ie. this is two separate arguments going on here). Carcharoth 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a proposal to revise the speedy deletion criteria G12, a criteria that under the arguments put forward by the deleting admin could equally have been used to delete this image, is being discussed here. Carcharoth 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn this is almost certainly public domain. And it's a highly iconic picture.DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based upon evidence presented thus far. This image doesn't appear to violate either CFSD #12 or WP:NFCC #2, nor any other WP:NFCC criterion such as #8 in at least several of the articles in which it was previously used. . ... Kenosis 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute - How doesn't if fails #8? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute what? The image appears to be in the public domain under German law, EU copyright law, and US copyright law. Importantly, no author has been clearly disclosed in conjunction with display of the image as is required by EU copyright convention, thus any claims of copyright would have expired after 70 years, which would be June, 2000. At an absolute, absolute minimum, a low-resolution version is quite within fair-use criteria and there's no exclusive holder of copyright. And, it is plain that #8 is a subjective "catch-all" phrase, one which most certainly does not apply here. This picture is worth the proverbial thousand words, and cannot be replaced by text of any kind or any length. ... Kenosis 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image can be really proven to be PD, then we don't have to worry about NFCC and you can use it wherever you want. But if it's not PD, NFCC applies. And "a picture is worth a 1000 words" is a very weak argument against NFCC#8. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to the opinion on #8; and I already gave a hint of mine--it's essentially a weasel clause, a balancing test that no one admin or other user should ever be able to assert singlehandedly without a discussion and consensus about its merits or lack thereof to an article. Why is this discussion still going on at this stage? I noted above the actual text of the 1993 EU copyright rules, today's standard, and they require the author's name to be publicly disclosed in conjunction with circulating the image. Is the argument here now to be that we must conclusively prove all these negatives? It's ridiculous at this point. Please undo the deletion and replace this image in the articles which last chose to include it. ... Kenosis 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Abu: did you know that Einstein and Planck were close friends (at least until they fell out)? Have a look at these sources: [9]: "They respected one another not only as physicists but also, for their inspired creation of world pictures, as artists. Planck helped to establish Einstein in a sinecure at the center of German physics, Berlin. Despite their differences in scientific style, social life, politics, and religion, they became fast friends."; and - a very nice look at the man behind the science: "Einstein described his friend as a man eaten by grief, yet one who still stood, “fully courageous and erect.” Rather than grow bitter and caustic towards life, Planck marshaled his spirits through work and the loving relationship with his only living son, Erwin." (my emphasis). There is more out there on Einstein's friendship with Planck. Now, say I wrote a section on that at Plank's article and at Einstein's article, and used this image of uncertain copyright status under fair-use to illustrate their friendship, would that satisfy you? I would also be interested in seeing your response to what Mr Isaacson said here: "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia, while someone else who interprets the criteria more liberally could defend almost every such picture." - this will be a perpetual problem if NFCC#8 remains so subjective. Carcharoth 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>I'm sorry but I could make no sense from all these Einsteins-friendship-plank thing you talk about. Don't you have picture of of Albert Einstein and Max Planck sitting together to illustrate your point? Without that, this topic is really difficult to be understood.</sarcasm> --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So from the tone of your sarcasm, I take it that you are "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? I recently pointed out to you a picture where you had provided a non-free use rationale, where you had written "never to illustrate the event it depicts" - and pointed out to you that the image is being used to illustrate the event it depicts. Which of these two images do you think is more likely to be problematic? My point here is that at the end of the day NFCC#8 is subjective. In cases that are subjective, specific arguments about the topic should carry more weight than general hand waving. Carcharoth 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:SOFIXIT. If that image is not being used according to the rationale, it should be removed, or worked out to be used in accordance to the rationale. I see this as only a distraction for your tentative above to explain how the EinteinPlank image passes WP:NFCC#8 --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm trying to work out whether you concentrate on areas that you know about, or whether you are indiscriminate in your image interests. Do you know enough about historical images to be comfortable in participating in image deletion debates for historical pictures? And I would genuinely like an answer to the point raised in that now-closed deletion discussion: are you "someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly [and] could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia"? At some point, a line has to be drawn. We are obviously drawing it in different places, but let me ask you how much difference it really makes. What is the worst-case scenario if you adopt a more liberal interpretation of WP:NFCC#8? Will Wikipedia collapse overnight? You could ask the same question of me, but I will stand by my stance that a Wikipedia that errs on the side of caution in cases of historic images like this will be a lesser encyclopedia than it could be. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the deletion review, if the licencing issue should be sorted once and for all here, I can only suggest that we wait until the American Institute of Physics librarian gets back to Kenosis with more information. If the deletion review should be closed before then, then I suggest overturn as WP:NFCC#2 was not valid, and relist at IfD to discuss the WP:NFCC#8 issues there. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid NFCC#8 debate-- see my comment immediately below. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this stage it's clear the image is in the public domain. As I noted here, farther up on this page, there is not any author's copyright because 70 years p.m.a. requires an explicit public claim of authorship appended to the image when it's published. Lacking such a claim of authorship disseminated in conjunction with the publishing of the photograph, any claim of copyright (e.g., "hey people, I'm the author of that photograph") lapses 70 years after the date of creation, which in this case is June, 2000. See article 1, §§1-4 of the 1993 EU copyright directive. In the US, for works published in other countries without publicly claiming authorship, any image published prior to 1978 is in the public domain. The only exception to this is a widely criticized 1996 decision in the 9th Circuit (West Coast U.S.) which extends the possibility of copyright protection for works originating in other countries, but which would require someone to actually step forward and assert authorship, such as the direct descendants/heirs of the photographer who took the 1930 photo of Einstein and Planck (see footnote 11 in this synopsis ). Do participants here begin to see how ridiculous this becomes here? that lacking a scenario wherein a descendant of the photographer emails or has a lawyer write Wikipedia saying "Hey Wikipedia, I'm the grandson of the photographer, and (ahem!!) the particular low-resolution image is not in the public domain, but is merely 'fair use'!!!"
........ And even if it's not in the public domain, it is on extremely solid ground as fair-use, and the issue of #8 has already been decided by consensus in the IfD that the image added explanatory power to at least two of the articles in which it was used. NFCC#8, being a highly subjective measure, must be decided by consensus and never by administrative decree. The consensus in the IfD was to keep the image, thus overriding Abu badali's assertion that #8 applied. And among the participants in the IfD who are not already known specifically for being intensively-focused-image-deletion advocates that regularly operate in this area, the consensus was unanimous to "keep" the image for at least one or two of the articles in which the image was previously placed. Even the closing admin did not raise the issue of #8 with respect to the Albert Einstein article, but only with some of the seven articles in which the image was used as a "fair-use" image. So close this please, and restore the image to the articles in which it was placed. Please make arguments for removal of the image based upon #8 individually for any articles to which it is asserted to apply. When I hear back from the librarian at AIP, I'll let everyone know what I find. ... Kenosis 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenosis, I wish what you were saying was right. But it's not. The crucial fly in the U.S. Copyright ointment is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994). Very roughly, that says that anything still in copyright in its original country on 1st January 1996 should be granted the U.S. copyright it would have been entitled to in the USA if all the formalities had been observed, all the renewals made, etc., such that it would have been in copyright in the USA on 1 Jan 1996. The effects can be seen in the table from Cornell here [10] (see "Works published outside the USA"). Because this image was still in copyright in Germany in 1996, it gets a copyright term of 95 years in the USA. So, whether or not it is now out of copyright in Germany, it is still subject to copyright in the USA, and will be until 2025. Jheald 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm no expert, but I think the fly in the ointment here is really that there has been no claim of authorship made in Germany. In other words, we don't know who took the photo, and it is not clear this was ever recorded. In other words, "if all the formalities had been observed" there would still be no chance of the photo being copyrighted in 1996. It really is possible to have "ownership of historical photo unknown" cases, and it is misleading to pretend that these cases should be treated like any other case of "ownership of modern photo unknown". Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course there are flies in the ointment, as is quite typical of intellectual property law since the advent of the internet. But none of them affect this situation on the evidence we have. A claim of authorship requires an author to step forward and say "hey, I took that photograph". The EU convention is explicit about this in Article 1. You can't just publish a photograph without attribution, then let 70 years elapse and have someone step forward and claim sole author's rights to something like an old photograph-- show me one case where this type of claim has been successfully made for a photograph in excess of 70 years after the fact-- just one. And, even in Germany, despite the major quirks involving newly granted copyrights on material that previously was in the public domain, it still requires, in keeping with EU copyright convention, public notice of authorship to be disclosed in conjunction with the publication of the photo in order to engage the "70 years p.m.a." clause. In other words, this photograph is not unpublished, but published without copyright, without an identified author. Incidentally, this also has nothing to do with the issue in the Copyright Act of 1976 regarding display of the "©" or the word "copyright", but rather has to do with notice that someone has actually claimed authorship of the already published "work", the original photograph. ... Kenosis 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else is still reading, I'd also like to note the following: Have a look at this copyright notice (which I found linked from Template:Otto Perry image) which sums up 'historical uncertain copyright' issues nicely. "The Denver Public Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in the collection. We encourage use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. [...] The nature of historical archival photograph collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine." It would seem logical to me that fair use be allowed in cases like this, but some people say that WP:NFCC#10a vetos that. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Uncertain copyright for historical images. Carcharoth 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that library knows what they are doing (or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing). They are saying they don't own the copyright or know you does, yet seem to claim copyright on the digital images in their collection, which would seems to go against Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Then they say use under the fair use clause, which is not necessary if they have no copyright. And again, fair use is secondary here to NFCC #10. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That library are doing exactly what we did with Template:Non-free unsure. I don't believe that NFCC #10 was ever intended to apply to historical pictures where the copyright and authorship of a photograph was never recorded or asserted, or where the records have been lost. I suspect that NFCC #10 was intended to stop people from just saying "I don't know who took this picture", when with a bit of effort they could find out. If efforts have been made to find out the copyright holder of a picture, and those efforts prove fruitless because it becomes clear that the records no longer exist, then NFCC #10 becomes meaningless. I'd also like to point out that even if the Bettmann Archives have a record of who they purchased the photo from, that in itself would not be sufficient, as that may just have been one of many copies made from the original negative (or whatever they used back then). Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, the date of the photo is June 28 1929, not 1930 as some have been saying. We also have the article Max Planck medal. I suspect a very strong case could be made for fair-use of the image in that article. Carcharoth 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very strong case for fair use is unnecessary unless someone can show us a claim of authorship. The evidence we have indicates no claim of authorship. After someone shows us a claim of authorship, we can, of course, discuss fair-use criteria upon such a showing of authorship. ... Kenosis 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not clear what the difficulty is in comprehending Kenosis' points. I've seen that picture, with no clear copyright, in several of the books I own on physics. This entire dispute appears to be based on an inability to comprehend copyright laws. Also, NFCC#8 is so subjective and nebulous that its value is practicall nil. Jim62sch 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Note that people generally were not so copyright-greedy back then, and the photo probably was taken by some member of the physics community with no thought of ownership. I too have seen it reproduced in various textbooks, and had the impression that it was considered to be in the public domain. Anyway, the argument that just because it exists on the Corbis/Getty website it must not be used in the Wikipedia is wrong, as noted previously. As to whether the photo adds anything of value to the article, it seems to me that very few Wikipedia photos have that property. — DAGwyn 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't establish PD status based on such speculation. And please, notice that there's a great difference between asking "whether the photo adds anything of value to the article" and whether "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I refer you to Max Planck medal - a picture of the inaugural award of the medal, to two of the pre-eminent physicists of the 20th century, is extremely relevant and informative for that article. If I uploaded the picture again and gave it a fair-use rationale for that article, would you need to open a new IfD to contest that? And I ask you again, do you see the difference between historical images and modern images? (for a longer version of this, see my unanswered question above #carcharoth1. Carcharoth 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A picture of Einstein and Planck together is completely unnecessary for the understanding of the content of Max Planck medal. There's no way you could write a valid fair use rationale for that article without ignoring NFCC#8.
    
    About your "unanswered question", you'll have to specify what are you calling "historical images". If by an historical image you mean an image illustrating an historical event, get to know that not all images of Elvis are notable (although Elvis himself is). And in the cases where the image itself is notable, fair use does not allow us to use the image indiscriminately, but only in the context of discussion the image itself and its notability and influence. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is very rare for an image itself to be notable. Have a look at Streamline Cars Ltd. The images there are not notable, but they are vital for understanding the article. That is why NFCC #8 is a useless and subjective criterion. When an image obviously should be kept under fair use, a strict interpretation of NFCC #8 would say it can't be used. This is why cases should be discussed on an individual basis. To return to an earlier example, since when was Image:inselian.jpg notable as an image? Are all Pulitzer Prize winning photographs notable enough that we can put them all in the article about the award? It is the event that is notable, not the image, hence that image should be deleted by your standards. But you wrote a fair use rationale for it. Can you see how that looks like double standards? Carcharoth 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. If the images at Streamline Cars Ltd are "vital for understanding the article", then they pass NFCC#8.
      2. Yes, Image:inselian.jpg is notable because it won a Pulitzer Prize. We could use Pulitzer Prize winning images in articles discussing those images. But a gallery on Pulitzer Prize won't be ok.
      3. What do you mean by "...obviously should be kept under fair use"? Do you mean the legal concept of "fair use"? Please, understand that WP:NFCC is far more restrictive than that.
      4. If you believe NFCC #8 is "useless and subjective", you should take your concerns to the policy discussion page, instead of refusing to follow it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe they are. Do you? What is the objective way of deciding such matters? What happens when people disagree over NFCC #8?
        
        Is Image:inselian.jpg currently used in an article discussing that image? The only article I can see that discusses the image as an image is Pulitzer Prize. If each photo was accompanied by text about the impact that image has had, then Pulitzer Prize would be an article, not a gallery. I'm serious here - don't mistake a well-illustrated article for a gallery. If each image has extensive commentary and sourced analysis of their impact, there is no reason why we could not have all the photographs there with non-free use rationales. Of course, if the commentary expanded enough, you could have separate articles for each picture, but that would be no less a gallery than a merged list of those articles.
        
        I should have said "non free" - apologies, I sometimes slip back into the old language. I am well aware that NFCC is far more restrictive than fair use - please don't be condescending.
        
        I think I will start a discussion about NFCC #8, and probably about NFCC #2 at the same time. Do you have a link to the archived discussions, or a rough date for when the discussions took place?
      - In general, though, I agree that any further discussion should be at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content criteria, as we are going in circles now. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Carcharoth 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note here: reproduction in textbooks doesn't imply public domain. There should be a list of picture credits in the back of those textbooks. If anyone could find a text book with this picture in it, and tell us the credit given, that would be immensely useful. Even if it is credited, it doesn't mean that the credited organisation own the rights to the picture. It could just mean that the person searching for a suitable picture to put in the book, came across this picture on the image library's website, and paid them for a copy of it to use in the book. It is perfectly legal to sell free pictures. A picture being sold by a commercial library doesn't make it copyrighted. That bring us back to what started this deletion review, and again, I say overturn. Carcharoth 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- True, and I'll have to go through my books. Nonetheless, it seems odd that no one has been able to prove that a copyright exists. I'd think that would be pretty easy to prove.
- As to this "rule", "the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", one could easily argue that we should get rid of 95% of our images. Hmmm, maybe I should just go around removing images from articles using that rationale. Oh, no, that would be a WP:POINT vio, wouldn't it? Good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a Though Police squad, I'd be hanged for even having such a thought. Jim62sch 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Free images can be used without having to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - free images can be used to decorate articles (note that I'm not using the word 'illustrate', as that, to me implies an informative aspect to the image). It's non-free images that have to pass NFCC #8 - a subjective criterion that is causing problems. A revision to NFCC #8 may have to be proposed soon. Carcharoth 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- See [11], and note: einst_pl.jpg A.E. und Max Planck (1929), p. 58, [AIP, Niels Bohr Library, Fritz Reiche Collection], no copyright (note that other items do have copyrights clearly stated). Jim62sch 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- cf [12] Jim62sch 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg – restored with consent of deleting admin, may need to be removed from some articles – GRBerry 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Photograph depicting the scraggly looking Microsoft founders and staff from Dec. 1978, sourced to Bill Gates' biography at Microsoft.com. Originally uploaded in Oct. 2005 under {{promotional}}. A canned historic photograph rationale was added by Quadell (talk · contribs) in Oct. 2006. On June 27 of this year, Quadell updated the rationale to state, in part:

If this image is used merely to show what an individual in the lineup looks like, it can be replaced by a contemporary free image of the person. If this image is used to show staffing at Microsoft without regard to era, it can be replaced by a current staffing photograph (or combined photos of individuals). But if this iconic image is used to discuss the image itself, no new alternative can replace it. In addition, if this image is clearly being used only to discuss this pivotal event (as discussed in the article) of a person's life, it cannot be replaced.

On July 16 of this year howcheng (talk · contribs) added a template which challenged this rationale, stating "As a non-free image, this requires a rationale for every article that it appears in, not just one blanket statement." By this time the photograph was used in a large number of articles, including Microsoft, History of Microsoft, and the personal biographies of all eleven people pictured therein. While howcheng's dispute tag was removed several times, no significant change to the rationale occurred and the image was deleted on Aug. 1st by ^demon (talk · contribs). Since no one challenged any aspect of Quadell's rationale, and since it was detailed and in accordance with fair use policy, I would like to request that this image be undeleted for use in History of Microsoft. All other uses should be discussed and backed up by individual rationales. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for use in History of Microsoft, other places need additional rationales. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - valid rationale applied for use in the History of Microsoft article. If the rationale wasn't valid for use in other articles, then remove it from those articles rather than delete the image. Neil ╦ 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anetode doesn't seem to have tried to resolve this matter with the deleting administrator (^demon) first. Additionally, ^demon is in favor of undeleting the image (although he does suggest some article edits). Given these two facts, is it necessary for this DRV to continue? — The Storm Surfer 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2007[edit]