Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/2006 July 19

Atomic Fire images

One of a whole series of images taken from Atomic Fire. All of these images are extremely vaguely sourced "official artwork," which is entirely supposition on the part of the uploader, as Atomic Fire doesn't make any distinction between screenshots, official promotional artwork, manual scans, etc.
I'm looking for a general precedent for images from Atomic Fire; any guess at the primary source for any image taken from Atomic Fire is going to be just that, a guess.- - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your assumptions are fast becoming disruptive. I recall you lied yesterday and verifed to me the site did not provide information on their images. Utterly incorrect. See the Atomic Fire FAQ. The line is question:

The majority of the official artwork in the gallery is scanned from guide books and other similar sources and cleaned up. Sometimes images are redrawn partially or entirely. In other cases, high quality artwork is provided by press kits from Capcom. A very small amount of images are aquired from sources like official gaming websites.

For fair use:

In most cases, yes, that's what the content is there for. For example, you can feel free to use official artwork in your avatars, wallpapers, website designs, comics, etc. What would not be alright is redistributing content as your own, such as using the images to create your own gallery or copying a written article. Too much effort goes into making the content for it to just be recycled as content for a lazy person's website. Also note that there is some content (such as comics/fan art) which you will need to get explicit permission from the author in order to use. -Randall Brackett 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. Atomic Fire doesn't make a distinction between screenshots, promotional art, manual scans, or images from other sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then that's a tagging issue, not a fair use issue. And certianly not one that's appropriate for IFD, which has been established. Although I'm inclined to think you're playing games again; you know the difference between screenshots and artwork. -Randall Brackett 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm asserting that these images are not and cannot be properly sourced. I'm not playing games; these don't pass WP:FU muster. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It does meet Fair Use, according to policy. My only problem arises from your attempt to falsely claim the site did not reveal the source if their images and they didn't know the difference between the images nor the screenshots. In general I cite #10 of the clause: (cite omitted as it is stretching an already-lengthy IFD page that is needed for other listings) No policy has been infringed upon, and hence you are playing games. Unless there's something I missed. -Randall Brackett 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper attribution of the source of the material

I dispute that the source has been properly attributed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I've no doubt this nomination will fail then. -Randall Brackett 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "This image is one of: a Capcom promotional image, a scan of a manual, a scan of a Capcom-licensed artbook, a heavily edited magazine scan, or non-Capcom-owned fanart" is sufficient sourcing. And a link to a policy page suffices; there's no need to copy and paste lengthy sections of it here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by that comment. A source is a source. The spirit of fair use is to prevent lawsuit action against wikipedia in light of insufficient usage of innapropriate copyrights. Quibbling about this doesn't fullfill that. I think the main point of the attribution is they derived from Capcom and that verification is all we need. -Randall Brackett 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reposting that copy and paste from WP:FU. You've already linked it. That suffices.

We don't know where these images originally came from, save that they are pictures of characters Capcom owns. While I recognize a couple of them, we have no way of telling what's fanart and what's not, what was published by Capcom of Japan and what was published by Capcom of America, and little ability to use the images as anything but decoration since it's difficult-to-impossible to comment on the original context in which these images appeared. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We are well aware of where the art came from; the Robot Masters in paticular came from the instruction booklet (I'm looking at it, currently). In classification, the others derived from official sources and I don't comprehend how a press kit and a artbook changes the fair use claim. It doesn't. It also of note the site in question organizes specific categories differnetly (per your comment, fan artwork is contained in a completely different gallery [1], making it a straw man). We know where the image came from; cited above. Why you're still in the dark I'm not sure. I'll leave this to the closing administrator as you're wikilawering now. -Randall Brackett 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you can specifically attest as coming from a specific source is okay. (Which Robot Master images are manual scans?) I'm just arguing that "official sources" isn't specific enough, because it could concievably include: Capcom of Japan promotional images, Capcom of America promotional images, scans of unspecified game manuals, scans of unspecified Capcom-licensed artbooks (the artbooks in particular may not pass fair use; the main selling point of an artbook is the art inside, and using that on Wikipedia does impair the ability to sell artbooks), or heavily edited magazine scans, or some other "official" source I haven't considered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the break in your argument. You claim a press kit or a scan changes the fair use claim. The crux is that a gutsman image from the original Mega Man can be provided from various venues from Capcom, be it the sourcebooks, scan or whatnot. But that's not really germane to the argument, as the clarification on the images does not state simply official sources. It states specifically it was lifted from the instruction booklet. The concept art is probably from a press kit as any other video game. The specific claim only works when there is a dubious view that the image did not derive from what the uploader stated. That has been verified. -Randall Brackett 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that (paraphrasing here) "Official artwork, found on Atomic Fire" doesn't cut it, because Atomic Fire will take any image that looks vaguely official, including promo art (probably okay), box art (probably okay), edited ads (probably not), artbooks (almost definitely not), manual scans (probably okay), guidebook scans (possibly not okay), or even convincing-looking fanart (almost definitely not).

I just looked at the description for Image:Normal airman and it was "Source is (atomic fire), scanned official artwork released with game" without any other attribution. That's pure supposition, and it doesn't cut it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The fair use policy isnt clear on this and this is purely a case-by-case basis. I suggest a section on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. -Randall Brackett 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy is clear enough on this one, since it's nearly impossible to write a fair-use rationale without any idea what the original source of the image was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. I'd just as soon attribute it to your viewpoint on the matter rather than one of clarity. -Randall Brackett 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the insinuations. My viewpoint is that it's impossible to properly source these images. I've been tagging a lot of equally-poorly-sourced images from all sorts of different pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then that's appropriate. I'll leave it there. -Randall Brackett 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be much more appropriate on Wikipedia:Copyright problems where we can inquire for outside opinions and others may make comments on it. IFD doesn't seem constructive for this issue. If no objections are raised, I'll refractor there per the policy outlined on Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -Randall Brackett 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a copyright violation; instead, I think it's nearly-impossible to write an accurate fair use rationale. If copyright problems handles that, then feel free to move this there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of having a proper fair use rationale entells proper copyrights, so by aserting this it is a copyright issue. The reasoning of writing a accurate fair use rationale isn't a standalone reasoning for deletion. It all amounts to copyright disputes. Policy is written as comprehensive to cover various venues of assisting wikipedia, all directed to a common subject. In this vien, all the policy requirements for Fair Use entell the safe usage of images without violating copyright. It so people can't game system, not a coup-out for policy wonks. -Randall Brackett 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less where this is resolved. If it belongs somewhere else, by all means move it there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, give me a minute and I'll refractor as appropriate. -Randall Brackett 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)