Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia/Deletion sorting

Official Press Release Photos

Images previously uploaded (please do not knee-jerk retag):

Images recently uploaded:

The following press release photos were listed for deletion. All are offical press release photos. All were labled as such. Press Release Photos are public domain. What do we need to do. Some photos I uploaded after looking at the others to make sure I had them labled correctly. --71Demon 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 71, thanks for the head's up on the Ireland photo deletion tag. I updated it to CFU, which seems to be a bit more accurate, and is also used on the majority of the photos from other state governments. I went ahead and CFU'd the Governor's photo, as well. I just added {{Copyrighted free use}}, and remove the tags that MECU added. Take care. Justen 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal, that is probably the tag that I used. --71Demon 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking back the image I just commented on, I found this listing of several with the same systemic problem. Coming here, I'll transplant my question. Justen, you said on Image:Betty Ireland, West Virginia Secretary of State.jpg that "The CFU tag does more accurately represent the status granted to official portraits by almost every state government in the United States, including Ms. Ireland's. See List of current United States Governors." I don't know about "almost every state" as I've not done much work in that area, but 71Demon (talk · contribs) nor yourself has provided any explicit evidence that these specific images have had their copyrights released -- only that they have been widely disseminated. Both 71Demon's talk page as well as a discussion of sorts on my own talk page have carried on this discussion as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the one with the problem. You are trying to force us to prove a negative. We (or at least I) have explained in detail of how the photos were obtained, by who and for what purpose. You are ignoring those as not being good enough for you. In the publishing world, they are enough. --71Demon 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71Demon is correct, you've been provided with details on how the photos were obtained and how they were released. Your request for "explicit evidence" is unwarranted. Wikipedia does not require a waiver, a sworn affidavit, a guaranteed bond, or any other "explicit evidence" to be on file. User:Vitale obtained permission from the Governor's office for the image of Joe Manchin. I was informed by the Secretary of State's office that her official portrait was for public use and could be used freely, without attribution. This is similar to the statements accompanying the official portraits of almost every other Governor's article on Wikipedia. Please see those other pages if you need further "explicit evidence" of how official portraits are used on Wikipedia. If you wish for Wikipedia to have a category for state (rather than federal) government official portraits, please utilize the community mechanisms of Wikipedia to suggest or propose such a reasonable accomodation. However, insisting on "explicit evidence" that Wikipedia does not require is not productive and does not and will not change the status of these images. Justen 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we are not permitted to use fair-use images solely to depict living people. Now, the case here is not so straight-forward. Many of the images have indications that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. If this is true, it may well be that this is an acceptable exemption from WP:FU's requirement that we use only freely-licensed images. That is, the images may actually be freely-licensed. The other images are marked as being released under the GFDL. I believe this is simply incorrect. It is certainly possible, for example, that the WV Legislature released Image:Sypolt dave.jpg under the terms of the GFDL but this would be so strange as to require extraordinary proof. The uploader cannot just decide to place the image under the GFDL, for example. Anyway, we do have a procedure for dealing with situations like this. We require that the permission is forwarded or scanned in and sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Best thing to do, I think, is to have 71Demon send the copyright permissions or proof of release of copyright to this address. Note that press release photographs are most certainly not public domain, the copyright continues to exist unless it is explicitly released. I think we should give the uploader a reasonable amount of time to get the permission information forwarded. One week is standard but it may be that more time is required here. Note that if no proof of release of copyright and/or no proof that the images have been released under the GFDL is available, Wikipedia must delete these images. --Yamla 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, an email from the copyright owner, stating that copyright has been released or that the image is available under the GFDL, is perfectly fine. We most certainly do require explicit evidence but we don't require a sworn affidavit or a guaranteed bond. An email from an official source is sufficient provided it is forwarded to the permissions address and provided it explicitly spells out that the copyright has been abandoned or that the image is licensed under the GFDL (some other options are appropriate, but this is what the uploaders of these images are claiming). --Yamla 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nuts.

These are Official Press Release photographs. They are released for use dipicting members of the West Virginia Legislature
I specifically ask Senator Dave Sypolt for photos to use on Wikipedia, and he provided a disc.
Call him and ask him where I got them. (304) 698-5299 You can find Dave's phone number here http://www.legis.state.wv.us/ so that you know I 'm not giving you a bogus one.

This is much to do about nothing, I have told you about everything, but what color underwear I was where that day. It was BLUE :-D --71Demon 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we aren't permitted to use official press release photos unless they are freely licensed (at least not to depict a living person). I agree that this would be fair-use but Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than fair-use permits. Clearly your actions were done in good faith but we do really require that the image uploader provides this additional information. --Yamla 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the policy is bad and needs changed. Wiki should be using excepted practices, not making up new ones (within the relm of legality). This is supposed to be a World Community Project, so far I have seen very little community in all my editing. Much arguing about non-sense, and very little good faith. Nothing changes, unless people work to make things change. You now have the opportunity to work towards a change for the better. Are you willing to take it? --71Demon 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental to the goal of the Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is free content. Copyrighted fair-use images are incompatible with the GFDL and go against one of our five pillars. We allow them in exceptional circumstances but not generally to depict living people. --Yamla 03:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the fiv pillars again, I disagree with you still. You hung up on the letter of the rule and not the spirit of the rule. Wiki's intent was never to deny the use of photos, text or anything that was released for use. The photos in question, were specifically released to depict these living people in print media, to hang on the wall in public places, and even for use in the electronic media. When a news paper runs a story of Dave Sypolt in their print addition, they also publish it on the net. That picture was released by the state specifically for that purpose. Wikipedia is no different than the electronic addition of the news paper. Using these photos on Wikipedia, is the exact reason (with others print, electronic news, etc.) these photos were released by the state. Using them on Wiki, is using them how they were intended to be used.

Step away from the dark side. Be part of the solution. You know that state Government Press Release Photos of living politicians are released for this and other purposes. While you are looking at the letter of the rule, you are ignoring the spirt of the rule. That means the rule needs to change. Maybe we just need a new template, to tag these. Work with us not against us. --71Demon 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked these images as missing an appropriate license. In actuality, they are simply missing proof of the license, as required by Wikipedia policy. It is more than a little unusual for a legislature to release an image under the GFDL but I am not claiming that the uploader is lying. There is most certainly no reason why they couldn't license the images under these terms and in fact, Wikipedia would encourage them to do so. Exceptional claims require proof, however; in fact, non-exceptional image licenses also require verifiability. These images are marked for deletion after one week. If anyone requires additional time to provide the licensing evidence, I am happy to extend the deadline by a reasonable amount. Just ask! Please refrain from removing the no-license tag, however, until this evidence has been provided. It would be a good idea to also make note that you have provided the evidence in order that the images are not speedily deleted. Thanks. --Yamla 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not further tag the Manchin image or the Ireland image. I cannot speak to the photographs being released under GFDL, as I also find that unlikely. I believe User:71Demon may have accidentally marked them as such. However, as to the photographs of Joe Manchin and Betty Ireland, per WP:C, these images are tagged properly, require no further action, and should not be deleted. I think the heightened scrutiny you're demanding of this particular group of images is unusual. As I advised User:pd_THOR earlier, I would encourage you to look at official portraits of other governors in the United States on Wikipedia. The status of this large body of images does not typically require permissions-en involvement. If you believe all of these images should be re-checked for copyright violations, you might wish to utilize any of the Wikipedia community mechanisms to coordinate such an undertaking. Justen 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are mistaken, unless these images are freely licensed, they violate WP:FU and have been marked as such. I have personally tagged several hundred images with the replaceable tag, there's no undue scrutiny here. --Yamla 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you've read more into that page than what's there. From WP:FU: images of living persons are "almost certainly not" acceptable under certain circumstances. The almost is there for a reason. These images, I, and many other Wikipedians recognize fall into a different category. Please see Wikipedia:Publicity_photos for further clarification. Specifically: "candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use." User:Yamla, once you better understand that these images do meet fair use rationale, please remove your {{Replaceable fair use}} tags. Justen 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Publicity photos is not policy, it's an essay. Fair-use policy #1 and counterexample #8 prohibits the use of fair-use images to depict living people. --Yamla 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but, in but the publicity section you linked to shows candidates for political office, these are not candidates, these are elected officials that are in the public sector. Just wanted to clarify that, the publicity section does not apply to these photos. --71Demon 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant anyway because Wikipedia:Publicity photos is not Wikipedia policy. But I believe "and others" would extend this to elected officials. --Yamla 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to think it was relevant, when you thought it supported your point. I see you have now taken to vandalising the photos. You ignor the fact that you have a WV state senator, Dave Sypolt, willing to talk to you on the phone to confirm everything. Now you are just doing this for spite --71Demon 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sypolt dave.jpg

I have received confirmation that Image:Sypolt dave.jpg has been released to the public domain. However, it has not been licensed under the GFDL as the uploader falsely claimed. --Yamla 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so!!!!!!!!!!! :-P BTW he even Spite Blocked me for correcting his vanadlism, when he kept ignoring the information as to the source of the photo. He implied I was a liar as well. We can now start fully working on the project of getting the WV Legislature put up on Wiki. I love when the dark side looses --71Demon 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

12 September 2007 - expires 17 September
- Oak Hill Baptist Church (PROD by User:Youngamerican; "Oak Hill Baptist Church is an American Baptist Church in Oak Hill, West Virginia, formed in 1892….")