Keep I uploaded both, and the larger image isn't much use for the several places that the smaller one is, because nobody can read Darwin's handwriting. If one needs to be deleted, based on there actual usage in articles, I would prefer that the larger one be, but we might as well keep both.BenB420:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Image lacks proper source data and copyright data, has no fair use rationale, and is a modified copyrighted image. Fair use does not allow image modification. —
Nardman104:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Huh? Isn't this the Air Force logo? In other words, isn't this public domain as United States government image? If not please explain, thanks.
IvoShandor09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I would say,
yes. No need to explain, Keep. How would this be original research? It doesn't seem to fall under any of the criteria at
WP:NOR. If it does please point it out. Confused as to what "released unofficially" means here. I was under the impression that all government images are public domain, presumably from the moment they are created, regardless of the "officialty" of their release.
IvoShandor09:28, 28 March 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.
OR, UE and LQ. Highly inaccurate and poorly drawn map of
Horwich's location, which is already covered in it's infobox using the location map template. —
Jhamez8402:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
speedy deleted under G12. The image was from the Associated Press, a commercial content provider who relies upon the licensing of their content to websites that provide information and analysis to readers. When not used in articles about such information providers themselves, our use is not obviously transformative, and does not obviously have no commercial impact on the copyright holder. Images from commercial information providers such not be uploaded to Wikipedia to illustrate our articles on the subject of the photograph unless those images themselves are the subject of analysis or educational commentary. Please see
Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.
Jkelly 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Believing the speedy deletion to be premature (for reasons noted in a comment below, I undeleted the image, notified
Jkelly on his talk page, and have reopened the IfD. --
MCB06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Agree with IvoShandor. The fact that the image is recent makes it even more valuable to the copyright owning news agency. --Abu badali(
talk)17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep as I explained at the mentioned images: this is not an incidental appearance by a politician, a starlet or a recently completed building, but a unique event, moreso in a warzone. "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." Clearly this image can NOT "reasonably be replaced" and thus satisy fair use criteria. It even has a proper, written rationale!
Circeus17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are
10 fair use criteria and irreplaceability is just one of them. This image is not being nominated because it violates item #1 (can not "reasonably be replaced"), but because it violates item #2 (do not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media) --Abu badali(
talk)22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Fair use is not a violation of a copyright holder's rights; it is a fundamental part of copyright law. --
MCB06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
True, but unrelated to my point. My point is that the fact that "Probably we will never find a free picture" doesn't automatically give us any special right (i.e., it doesn't automatically make using the image fair use). --Abu badali(
talk)14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Classic Fair Use case; the event is newsworthy, the subject matter is an unrepeatable occurrence, it is extremely unlikely that there is a free-use alternative, and the economic diminution to the copyright owner's interests is trivial, since the event is past the immediate time period of the "hot news" market, and the image is low resolution and therefore unsuitable for print or archival media. --
MCB18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment the fact that this image is irreplaceble is exactly what makes it specially valuable to it's copyright holder. What makes you believe the image has no economic value outside the "hot news market"? --Abu badali(
talk)22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Two factors: first, the image is very small (380 × 264 pixels), low-resolution, and unsuitable for print media or archival uses. (Criterion #2 in
WP:FU makes reference to "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies"; this is a tiny image.) Second, the major economic value of the work has already been realized. A private party or stringer sold the photo to AP (or else it was taken by an AP staffer), and AP distributed it under its contracts with print and electronic media to supply timely news and news photographs. Those uses, during the news cycle for a disaster of the moderate scale of the crash, represent nearly the entire economic value of the work. Reproductions, inclusion in searchable archives, annual compilations, etc., are very small in comparison, and any economic damage to them is highly speculative and questionable. --
MCB06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but your analysis is what sounds speculative. "print media or archival uses" is not the only market for news images. They are used on the Internet, increasing a given website's value.
As you explained, AP paid for this image and distributed it for it's customers under a contract. If we use it freely, we're undermining AP business. --Abu badali(
talk)14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Can you give some concrete examples of the market for paid re-use on the Internet, and the approximate value of that re-use? The photographer has already been paid for the image. AP has already been paid for the image. What portion of the total market is left, and how does Wikipedia's use affect it? Facts, please, not speculation. --
MCB18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely. I know of an informative website about this event whose authors have an interest in using this image. This is a concrete market opportunity to AP. You can access this site here
[2] --Abu badali(
talk)20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The wikipedia article is the informative website about this event I was talking about. Our use of the image is a lost market opportunity to AP. --Abu badali(
talk)15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That does not make any sense to me. Wikipedia does not pay for content, and there's no scenario under which our unpaid use of the image would replace our paid use for the image; Wikipedia is not a market opportunity. Again, can you cite an actual, concrete market opportunity that is foreclosed by Wikipedia's use of the image? --
MCB22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Correct me if I'm wrong: By your rationale, I can set up a web site called worldHotNews.com with breaking news (and images) I copy from reuters, AP, and UP. But as long as I have a policy to never pay for content I copy from news providers, I'm free to copy content from news providers? This is like saying "I would never buy a Software from this company, so I'm entitled to steal one." --Abu badali(
talk)16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I believe that pre-emptively closing an xfD as a copyvio in the middle of a discussion about Fair use is premature and out of process. I posted to
Jkelly's talk page and invited him to participate here in the hope of reaching a consensus about the Fair use issues. To that end, I have reopened the IfD for further discussion. --
MCB06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete does not adequatly show how (or if) the event in question was historically significant, although a replacement image does need to be found - what are our fair use criterea regarding famous personalities?
Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is not a "historically significant photo" as the fair use rationale claims, nor is it being used to depict an event. It's being used to show how the person looks like. --Abu badali(
talk)03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication image in the the public domain. But if we claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication image has been released under the GFDL. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication image has been released into the public domain. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication image has been released into the public domain. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral: Probably not, unless the building is gone, which I don't know, and even then a more free alternative could probably be found.
IvoShandor09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's replaceable (FUC#1), comes from a news agency (FUC#2), does not contribute significantly to the articles (FUC#9) and uses a deprecated fair use tag with no rationale (FUC#10). --Abu badali(
talk)03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, this hardly interferes with copyright holder's ability to resell the image, as the market for this image is probably zero. And in any case the version they resold would be of higher res.
Nardman103:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication image has been released under the GFDL. But if we claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
speedy deleted under G12. The image was from the Associated Press, a commercial content provider who relies upon the licensing of their content to websites that provide information and analysis to readers. When not used in articles about such information providers themselves, our use is not obviously transformative, and does not obviously have no commercial impact on the copyright holder. Images from commercial information providers such not be uploaded to Wikipedia to illustrate our articles on the subject of the photograph unless those images themselves are the subject of analysis or educational commentary. Please see
Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.
Jkelly 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Believing the speedy deletion to be premature (for reasons noted in a comment below, I undeleted the image, notified
Jkelly on his talk page, and have reopened the IfD. --
MCB06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Classic Fair Use case; the event is newsworthy, the subject matter is an unrepeatable occurrence, it is extremely unlikely that there is a free-use alternative, and the economic diminution to the copyright owner's interests is trivial, since the event is past the immediate time period of the "hot news" market, and the image is low resolution and therefore unsuitable for print or archival media. --
MCB18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I believe that pre-emptively closing an xfD as a copyvio in the middle of a discussion about Fair use is premature and out of process. I posted to
Jkelly's talk page and invited him to participate here in the hope of reaching a consensus about the Fair use issues. To that end, I have reopened the IfD for further discussion. My specific responses to the issues raised can be found above under
Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg. --
MCB06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at
Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2talk06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not really fair use as it fails Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information since a free replacement can be made if desired. --
Drini16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This image was probably uploaded as a joke. Its subject is clearly unencyclopedic and its source is questionable. It claims to be a public domain NOAA photo, which I find quite hard to believe, considering what it is an image of (i.e. a cow with moose antlers standing on a pole). Furthermore, the website from which it was uploaded is not associated with NOAA in any way nor is it any kind of serious website. A thorough Google search of "NOAA and cow and antlers" finds only links to Wikipedia (and derivatives of that) but nothing official from NOAA. I doubt that this really is a NOAA photo. It's probably something that someone Photoshopped and then uploaded to Wikipedia (and to the Commons). So, this image is not only unencyclopedic and can't be used in any serious way in a serious encyclopedia, but its source is also unknown.—
Hnsampat18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC).reply
I noticed that. However, if the image has no reliable source information, then I think Wikipedia policy dictates that it has to go. Furthermore, the image has little serious usefulness outside of that project. --
Hnsampat23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It does have purpose and wasn't uploaded as a joke. It is a part of the article
Surreal humour, which is how I found the image. I can't comment on the source of the image, but it should definitely be noted that the picture is used for an actual article, and not just a project mascot.
PoeticXcontribs03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is not 'unencyclopaedic' -- it is illustrative of a concept. It may also be a joke, but that is not mutually exclusive with whether or not it is encyclopaedic. Similarly, I don't see that the use of humour in context is antithetical to a serious enyclopaedia.
Rls11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's about surrealism. It's about the topic.