Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 13
March 13
edit
- Obselete. See Schnappi's Winterfest.PNG. -- AAA! (AAAA) 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Obsoleted by Leighton-The Fisherman and the Syren-c. 1856-1858.jpg — grendel|khan 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by User:Deltaforce5000 (notify | contribs).
- Now on Commons under Commons:Image:New_Horizons_Jupiter_flyby.png. I did the file format conversion, eliminating most of the artifacts. — Deco 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Thin Arthur (notify | contribs).
- Redundant — Thin Arthur 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- Orphaned, not clear who this is Selket Talk 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Obselete Orphan — Joelholdsworth 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- Commons showing through. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jimmypagerules75 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopaedic. Looks like user is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal photo repositary. — Waggers 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jimmypagerules75 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopaedic. Looks like user is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal photo repositary. — Waggers 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jimmypagerules75 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopaedic. Looks like user is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal photo repositary. — Waggers 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jimmypagerules75 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopaedic. Looks like user is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal photo repositary. — Waggers 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jimmypagerules75 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopaedic. Looks like user is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal photo repositary. — Waggers 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright violation: mis-tagged, not PD, non-commercial non-"offensive" (to portual) use only -- Selket Talk 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned Selket Talk 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned Selket Talk 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Steelersfan 2011 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possible Copyright violation, looks like http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/alltel_woos_customers_with_motorola_w315_cell_phone.html on repaced background Selket Talk 12:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Steelersfan 2011 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possible Copyright violation, looks like http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/alltel_woos_customers_with_motorola_w315_cell_phone.html on repaced background Selket Talk 12:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned and not likely to be used anywhere Selket Talk 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not very encyclopedic. Although I might keep a copy of it for myself... --AAA! (AAAA) 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Awesome. 24.17.214.110 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It is apparently being used on Llama today, but was uploaded as an attack image. I also doubt it is legitimately licensed. It looks like a screenshot to me, possibly from Dirty Jobs. ~ BigrTex 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Incorrectly licensed as {{PD-self}}. According to the uploader on the image's page, the image is derived from Image:Regine_20_Poster.jpg which is tagged with {{Eventposter}}, a fair use tag. — bluemask (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).
- Violates WP:FUC#2. This is an official image of a Noble prize laureate from nobelprize.com. According to their Legal Notice(pdf), Nobel prize licenses such images under a fee. It states "You may not reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, modify, perform, adapt, generate derivative works or otherwise use the Content without prior written permission" and further: "Please be advised that Nobel Web is selective in granting such permission, and when Nobel Web does grant permission Nobel Web generally impose a fee". - Abu badali (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- For a change I agree with Abu badali. But I have a few reservations due to the following reason:
- The image is a thumbnail. Above policy, covers everything I know, but thumbnails historically are not very valuable. What if we further reduced it? This category Category:Rescaled fairuse images seems to provide a means to reproduce this image small as it is in an even smaller version. I can do that. Dr.K. 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also subject of picture is deceased. Free image will be nigh impossible to obtain. Dr.K. 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This only increases nobelprize.com's image's value, leaving use even more deeply stuck with WP:FUC#2. --Abu badali (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image now has visble single pixels. I think that's as low as it goes. Dr.K. 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this is about the image resolution, as we're not reproducing a notable work for commentary on this work. This is simply counterexample 5, but with "press agency" generalized to "copyright holder willing to license the image for a fee". --Abu badali (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point. This image doesn't fall into one of the blanket categories of fair use.
- Image now has visble single pixels. I think that's as low as it goes. Dr.K. 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar": To illustrate the object in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia ([1]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]), qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
My point is this tag covers the grey areas that are not explicitly covered in the policy that you correctly cite. The above tag coupled with the reduced image tag:
The previous version(s) of this image are copyrighted and were used under a claim of fair use. In accordance with the Wikipedia fair use policy, a smaller or lower quality version, or a freely-licensed replacement, has been uploaded in their place. Administrators: if the previous version(s) did not satisfy the fair use criteria, please delete them seven days after this template was added (March-13-2007). Otherwise, please revert the image and remove this tag.
should suffice. Dr.K. 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please, understand that there's not a correct tag for every image. Some images are simply unusable, and this one, as it is today, imho, is one of those. This has never been about tagging, just as it has never been about image resolution. Try to address my WP:FUC#2 concerns. --Abu badali (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Permission has been requested to use the image. I believe if it's granted (even if it's not freely licensed) then we shouldn't worry about the fair use problem. But maybe we can wait to find out if permission will be granted before deleting the image. Mangojuicetalk 12:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be the perfect solution, having the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. Make sure to follow the instructions on WP:COPYREQ, and (please! please!) don't forget to ask the copyright holder to forward his permission to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and add the otrs number to the image description page. I promise a barnstar (or a beer) for everyone involved, if we managed to get this image release under a free license. :) --Abu badali (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I forwarded a modified license proposal to the Nobel Foundation as per the suggestion of Mangojuice. I will inform you as soon as they reply. Thanks. Dr.K. 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The policy has changed believe it or not since 12 March 2007. Anyway they replied thus:
- I forwarded a modified license proposal to the Nobel Foundation as per the suggestion of Mangojuice. I will inform you as soon as they reply. Thanks. Dr.K. 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Nobel Foundation does not distribute any portrait photos of the Nobel Laureates due to copyright considerations (a new policy from March 12).
For the record I wish to state that we could still make a claim under the promotional and/or fair use categories but I don't want to restart this debate as I see no point repeating the same things over and over and I don't see very much interest from anyone else to participate in this debate (other than the editors currently involved and Mangojuice (who was dragged into this whole mess)). I know that Wikipedia sometimes becomes a really surreal place. I think that I can do better here than to spend my time trying to defend alone a couple of kilobytes of picture real estate. Dr.K. 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Honourable mention goes as well to user Hackajar for his valiant efforts. Dr.K. 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Promotional material is material intended to be used by the media. This photo is intended to be used on the copyright holder website alone. --Abu badali (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your rationale has its merits. So has mine. I don't want to extend this discussion past its proper length but if you substitute the word media by the word Internet and see also the other promotional material around Chandrasekhar's picture as mentioned on the picture page, you will see that this site promotes the work of the copyright holders on the internet. People get attracted by the Chandrasekhar picture and then sign up for the newsletter etc. Nonetheless I recognise you have a job to do and that you do it using proper arguments and doing good research. In another climate and under clearer policies these arguments may not have been as effective. That doesn't diminish your contribution to this debate. Well done. Take care. Dr.K. 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Promotional material is material intended to be used by the media. This photo is intended to be used on the copyright holder website alone. --Abu badali (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Honourable mention goes as well to user Hackajar for his valiant efforts. Dr.K. 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a photo out there of Chandreskhar receiving the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to determine who actually owns the photo: it's used on the web in a couple of unattributed web sites. That is the image we should be trying to get, not this one. I think, sadly, we should delete this image, although no replacement is currently available. Mangojuicetalk 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Using an image of to pretend we're illustrating an event, and not a person, would be playing the system. Remember that, by WP:FUC #8, an unfree image should only be used when it's completely necessary. We don't need an unfree image of him receiving the Nobel Prize to explain he received the Nobel Prize. (but, of course, a free image of this event would be wonderful).
- This kind do picture-of-person-receiving-the-award abuse is already far too common in pageant contestants and wrestlers articles. No need to extend it to nobel prize winners. --Abu badali (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- FUC #8 says that the image should add significantly to the article, not that unfree images should only be used when "completely necessary." Mangojuicetalk 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by 8891Knowles (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Selket Talk 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by 8891Knowles (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Selket Talk 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by 8891Knowles (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Selket Talk 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Chineseoccupation (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation: no source information Selket Talk 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned Selket Talk 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Commons image showing through. ~ BigrTex 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- poor quality, only linked from talk page Selket Talk 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The quality is acceptable and it presents an interesting image of a studious-looking HL in his older years. It is a potentially useful image which may be found a home yet. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Majinsaiya (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Selket Talk 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphanded, not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphanded, not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphanded, not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic, Orphaned BigrTex 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Yoshirocks182 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, likely Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader BigrTex 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Jiburajeev (notify | contribs).
- Orphanded, unencyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Commons image showing through. ~ BigrTex 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, according to Arizona State Route 101, the road is a loop and signed as such BigrTex 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it has therefore been made obsolete as well. -- Selket Talk 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphanded, cute kid, but not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Commons image showing through. ~ BigrTex 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by . DaveZambo (notify | contribs).
- Orphanded, not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Only used in a speedily deleted article Godporn. Uploader is now blocked due to an inappropriate username. - Mike Rosoft 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, un-encyclopedic image with no copyright tag. — ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
