This image was cropped from the DVD cover. Since it now only depicts one actor's face, it cannot be - and is not being - used "to illustrate the DVD in question" as is specified in
template:DVDcover —
Seidenstud01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is unnecessary (several images already illustrate
Paint (software)), has incorrect licensing (a screenshot of a copyrighted software cannot be released into the public domain) and is currently orphaned. I therefore nominate it for deletion.
Iamunknown01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
These images are all tagged with {{GFDL}} but, given the website they come from (
http://ww.gminsidenews.com/) such a claim is at best unsupported and at worst unlikely. The copyright holder is likely General Motors, Inc. (or some subsidary or parent corporation) but it cannot be exactly determined, nor can the intent of the images by the copyright holder or the Terms of Use be determined. Furthermore, the images are orphaned. Thus I nominate them for deletion. --
Iamunknown03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete it. The Dept. of Homeland Security has a proper seal now; this was uploaded when the DHS was being set up and is obsolete now. - Thanks, Hoshie04:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
A fair use image (though it is not properly tagged) because it is a derivative work of copyrighted text that is unused and possibly unencyclopedic.
Iamunknown04:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe this falls within the remit of fair-use; however if you suggest it adds nothing to the article, that's a fair point. Either the notability of the band being on the cover of a large circulation magazine needs to be included in the article, or it's sensible to delete this image. I do feel that as this is the only magazine cover in the article it reflects some aspect of media coverage of the Franz Ferdinand and certainly takes nothing away from the article by its inclusion.
Y control19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the image's discussion page or in a
deletion review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was to delete the image. Iamunknown and Abu badali made the best points in the discussion: that NBC specifically prohibits use of its media outside of its websites, the use of the media devalues its potential market value and may be a copyright violation, and in terms of our specific policies, it violates our policy on non-free content. The main crux of the keep !votes, based on Mystache's comment, is that NBC allows for limited personal use its media, but there is no way that use on Wikipedia can possibly be considered personal use. --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! -
<*>04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Claimed to be promotional but source site is nbc.com, whose
terms of use cleary states "You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on, or distribute in any way any material from the Service". Images from nbc.com are to be used on that site alone, and this is what gives that site an advantage over other non-official sites. Our use of this image on our article about the tv-series it depicts (regardles of which image tag we use), replaces the original market value of those images (i.e., illustrate a webpage about the give tv show). Abu badali(
talk)19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi, DrBat. As this is not a vote, would you like to share your views on these issues? Do you believe my concerns are invalid in some way? --Abu badali(
talk)20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes.
How does using that image hurt the sales of The Office in any way? You talk about "original market value"; what market value? That image alone is not what brings people over to NBC's Office website; it's the exclusive content, the deleted scenes, the downloads, ect ect.
The idea that someone would see that image and then decide not to visit The Office's website after seeing said image is absolutely inane. --
DrBat21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I would think that would apply more to other commercial sites who would use the image for profit, and not to a site like Wikipedia. --
DrBat15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Is there a way of asking permission to use the image? Surely there's someone we can contact. I can see where your concerns are coming from, but I'm sure there's something that can be done...If not, then I'd vote to delete.
Jay07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete since the image fails point 2 of our
non-free content policy, i.e. its use does exactly the opposite of "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media...." --
Iamunknown16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Ghosts&empties, are you sure you read the right "terms"? What do you mean by "ludicrously broad? They are broad in what they forbid, right? And do you plan to ignore them? From the text:
"You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on, or distribute in any way any material from the Service, including but not limited to code and software ("Material")" - Section 1.iv.
"You may, however, download Material from the Service for your personal, non-commercial use only" - Section 1.iv.
"It is a condition of your use of the Service that you do not: (...) resell, redistribute, broadcast or transfer the information or use the information derived from the Service in a searchable, machine-readable database;" - Section 2.d.x.
"NBC may, in its sole discretion, discontinue or alter any aspect of the Service, including, but not limited to (...) restricting or terminating any User's right to use all or part of the Service, at any time in NBC's sole discretion and without prior notice or liability." - Section 1,iv.
The terms apply the maximum possible restriction to all content which is quite broad. But if one leader from WP could recognize that there is no damage to NBC here and even if there were, the damage to WP of having to remove this image is neglible. So yes, I'm prepared to ignore them and be liable to WP for any damages.
Ghosts&empties16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The next line clearly states, "You may, however, download Material from the Service for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices," which IMO, would include fair use.
Mystache23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd like to comment further on why I think that the image likely replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media. The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) does not freely license, even in the weakest terms required for promotional material, the content on their website, but instead require that press sources who wish to illustrate relevant articles or televised media pay money for each use of this material. These press sources only have a market inasmuch as the demand for the material is there; widespread hosting of similar material thus affects their market and thus the market value of the original material owned by NBC. Our use of this image, in particular, in that it is provided to a significantly large audience, signficantly lowers the value of the media they license to press sources and thus not only fails
WP:NFCC#10 but also
Title 17 § 107 No. 4. This takes primacy over Mystache's observations and thus the image should be deleted as mere copyright infringement. --
Iamunknown06:40, 21 April 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 image's discussion page or in a
deletion review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Low quality - true - but nothing else is available at this time for that subject - I haven't had a chance to drive by the place where the volcano evacuation route is - where the signs are. However it is the only sign like it in the this wiki catalog and it is relevant to the articles about
lahar and
volcano. Not sure what "uncoroboratable licensing" means - the license on my picture is marked as NoRightsReserved by me, the person who owns and took the picture.
Bdelisle20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply