orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, GFDL-presumed tagged, it should be possible to great a cleanly licensed image if nessesary, can not be moved to commons due to insufficent license
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I tagged this image as replaceable fair use. The admin
User:Spike Wilbury processed the image and decided it should be kept, saying "acceptable image under crown copyright". Since this is a portrait of a living person, I suspect Spike did not understand the subtleties of our non-free content policy. It looks pretty clearly replaceable to me. Comments? (See also the image talk page.)- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
There are lots of technicalities that could get this speedied, but I want to bring to light the specific problem with this: it's a doctored representation of an album cover that doesn't exist (Easy to Assemble was never properly released); specifically, this is a cropped and Photoshopped version of the cover of the "Love on the Run" single. I can't find a speedy way to deal with images that are misrepresentations, so here's the full nomination. —
Unint01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for notifying me. I wasn't aware that the image was not the actual album cover, as the uploader I've put up for speedy ( {{db-author}}).
D4g0thur03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per
User:UDP appears to be a photo from a film made at Wikimania 2006. I am going to add it to his user page to prevent the orphaning. -
N02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. I uploaded this image to illustrate a point in a recent TfD discussion. Now the template has been deleted and this image no longer serves any purpose. —
BRMo02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Image has copyright tag, but no proof that the item is licensed for use, looks like a publicity still for a TV show possibly.
74.204.40.4606:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image pulled from an edition of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, an encyclopedia style sriese publushed by Marvel Comics. As such, the image is counter to
this guideline. —
J Greb06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image pulled from an edition of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, an encyclopedia style sriese publushed by Marvel Comics. As such, the image is counter to
this guideline. —
J Greb06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A dead link on the page says that the creator allows its use on Wikipedia. Does that mean GFDL? Maybe, maybe not. His e-mail address is listed, though, if anyone wants to e-mail him for clarification. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept. I have been in email communication with Mr Hebert and he has agreed to license it as CC-BY. The email thread has been forwarded to OTRS. howcheng {
chat}23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Image is tagged as pd-self, but summary says it was created by the founder of the Delian Sociaety and is "used by permission" and the permission does not include Wikipedia. Guy (
Help!)
08:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
See the talk page. It seems plausible that the copyright-holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, and the uploader just didn't make that clear. It seems equally plausible that the copyright holder only allows its use on Wikipedia. His e-mail address is on the talk page -- perhaps we should e-mail him and move this to
WP:PUI. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
First of all, bad licensing. Scofield (Miller) photo is
here under fair use. Secondly, map was
Painted and saved in JPG, creating artifacts. Thirdly, don't know from where he took the US map. Fourthly, it just sucks...
Hołek҉11:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The license is correct. But there is another wikiproject for free text - Wikisource. Moreover why this text was insereted in article as image? Why it wasn't inserted as text (which is more suitable for copying)?
Alex Spade10:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Image was uploaded only as a discussion on the authenticity of another image. Image pages are not supposed to be used as discussion space, and no article actually uses the image itself. Also, there's no evidence to support the assertion that it is in the public domain. —
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Image was uploaded only as a discussion on the authenticity of another image. Image pages are not supposed to be used as discussion space, and no article actually uses the image itself. Also, there's no evidence to support the assertion that it is in the public domain. —
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC).reply
---
For both these images, I find these to be in the public domain. Only non-free images aren't allowed to be used on talk pages. No reason to delete. Kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. I6 and two counts of I7 (replaceable portrait of living person; blatantly false and inapplicable fair use template). —
LX (
talk,
contribs)23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a purported photo of
Mike Davis (basketball coach). The neon green shirt is a blatant photoshop and if you take a look at the left side of his neck (our left, his right), the black background behind him is obviously photoshopped too. I have no idea if this is a legitimately free image or not (I doubt it), but whatever it is, it is not encyclopedic.
BigΔT22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know what "recently absent uploader" means but I have asked on the talk page why this photo was removed from the Zinn bio page. Why is the license questionable?
Skywriter02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
My mistake, the uploader is not absent (recently or otherwise). With regards to the license, the text added claims it to be a publicity photo. It is very unusual that a photo used for publicity is released so freely as public domain. Yes the subject and/or his agent may want his image out there, but still would want to control its use if it became nessesary. As an extream example, I could photoshot the image in an very unflatering way and place it on posters talking negatively about him and plaster them around his hometown -- he could not do anything about the image use as it is in the public domain. The way to provide clearer information about the image is to explain were you got the image and who stated it was public domain and no rights reserved.--
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Gay.
I'd like more information about what is and is not permitted. How does the promo picture that is the subject of this deletion request different from
Image:Gottfredson.jpg. Both are promo photos.
The only difference I see is that one has not been taken down and the other has.
Skywriter21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
There are a number of differences:
- The nominated image is an orphan and the noted one is not
- The nominated image does not have a source provided and the noted one does
- The nominated image has a license that is unexpected, causing someone to look further into it and the noted one has a standard, expected license
Dispite these differences, it is still very plausable that the noted image should be nominated for deletion as it does not have a fair use rationale and as the person shown is living, it may also be considered for deletion as a replaceable non-free image. The fact it has not been nominated does not imply it shouldn't - there are hundreds of thousands of images on WP and only a small fraction are reviewed at any time. If you would like some more info on non-free images and their limited uses on WP, check out
WP:NONFREE--
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is publicity image, no copyright status or source listed. Image already has been replaced by a screen cap of subject with source and copyright info status, along with use rationale.
Ejfetters01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply