Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible Copyright violation (image is from an Arizona state government website - state-owned material is not PD) Coredesat00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. No indication that the image has been released under the GFDL. Link provided gives no information about licensing. Searching for the Hi-5 and Five site, I can't find any notice releasing this under the GFDL. Regardless, the image has a copyrighted logo, the same of which the user has uploaded under a fair use rationale, and nobody is allowed to release an image with unfree elements under the GFDL. — Rebelguys2talk06:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
not an album cover, a screenshot of a copyrighted photoshoot video fro the official fan club available to members only —
Alankc06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).reply
not an album cover, a screenshot of a copyrighted photoshoot video fro the official fan club available to members only —
Alankc06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete (CV) - Fair use copyright claim, however all logos are at least thirty years old (long out of date) and are of no value to their associated articles (past logos are not inherently notable). Uploader admits scanning logos from a copyrighted publication. — /
Blaxthos06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).reply
Personally, I cannot see why TV Guide, its present owners News Corp, or the television stations would press charges against Wikipedia for a harmless historical referent such as these images, as they certainly have no conceivable negative impact upon the sales of the magazine currently or upon station viewership. In fact, TV Guide has discontinued local station listings, in favor of broadcast and cable networks only, so I contend the copyright infringement charge to be a moot one. What is telling about Blaxthos' accusation is that he believes them not "inherently notable." This, to me, is a subjective value judgment that runs counter to this website's encouragement of free expression within reasonable limits. I know that graphic storage space on Wikipedia is certainly not unlimited, and that priorities must be made, but I know that there must be far worthier targets of a purge (actual plagiarism, etc.). I suspect the user is acting from petty or malicious motivation. I intend to contest this blacklisting to the highest court of appeal, if necessary. If I passively accept his/her arbitrary judgment and the images get deleted, it is likely no one will be safe from him/her in the future.
Mike14:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Mike, I might suggest you read the Wikipedia rules regarding fair use (we must be compliant with both the law and wikipedia guidelines, as well as the instructions included in the boiler plates you chose (including finding the correct template) before crying foul. One, the liklihood of copyright holders' intentions has no influence on the decision. Two, all of these stations have abandoned those logos (long ago), and there is no historical value to posting old logos on company pages (especially local TV providers). As stated previously, there is no inherent notability in defunct logos. Each article has a current graphic; adding old graphics lifted from copyrighted material definitely does not comply with our fair use policies. I might suggest you also read
WP:NPA as well -- you're awful close to the line. /
Blaxthos18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to find a television station's logo sufficiently notable to appear in an article about that station. However, I notice that all of these image lack a detailed fair use rationale, at best being marked with a boilerplate fair use template (note that the text of the {{logo}} tag specifically says that a fair use rationale is required). Per
WP:CSD#I6, these images are eligible for speedy deletion should someone care to mark them with {{
subst:nrd}}. —
RP8814:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've added fair use rationales to all of the above images. Also, please note that the
notability guidelines do not apply to items within an article, but to the topic which is the subject of the entire article.
DHowell23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As I expected, they have been removed again, and he has
threatened me with blocking if I reinsert them. These images should not be deleted for being orphaned while their status within their respective pages is being disputed.
DHowell03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
For the record, there appears to be some misrepresentation of policy here -- please see the ongoing discussion at
Dhowell's talk page. If the image isn't actually part of the article (ie has commentary) then it fails the fair use rationale. As stated previously, their mere presence adds no value (historical or otherwise) to the article -- simply existing is not a fair use rationale, and they are not otherwise notable to the subject. They should be speedied, post haste (crusaders notwithstanding), not because they are orphaned, but because they are a copyright violation of no value (as the AFD states). /
Blaxthos07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphans - These images are all exact duplicates of images uploaded under other names to commons in 2005. I've switched all occurances to use the ones from commons. —
RP8812:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic? confusing license: claimed copyright and stated all rights reserved but then released under GFDL-self
MECU≈
talk20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Am I missing something? GFDL images are copyright and all rights are reserved except for those specifically licensed to a third party through the GFDL. In order for the GFDL to work (i.e., derivative works must be GFDL also) the image must be copyright. I mean, delete this b/c it is orphaned, but I don't see the copyright issue. --SelketTalk15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Unphotoshopped image is a copyrighted screenshot; this is photoshopped, but if you undo the photoshop, it's copyrighted by
Nintendo. Currently it's disputed, but we're putting this image for deletion here.-
Bigtop22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a 22 Kb picture uploaded by a Kristen Bell fan (he claims to be her father...). The edits of this user are restricted to the actress' article. I couldn't find a source, but the picture does not seem PD-self to me. —
Dantadd23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Had the tagger done their research (by looking at talk pages) they would notice that it was the actresses father who uploaded the image.
Matthew00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Ignorance is no valid excuse. The only rationale I can see from you is that it's "over sized" (I'm laughing my ass off..) -- and the source is clearly stated, a family member.
Matthew00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not OVER sized. If you are the photographer you can add a normal picture with a normal file size and 22Kb is the size of a thumbnail (even a regular cel phone picture is bigger than 22Kb). So, here I can say that I'm Angelina Jolie's uncle and upload thumbnail I find on the Internet?
Dantadd00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
it isn't the file size that is odd but the resolution is rather low for a family photo (normaly it would be much higher.
Geni00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You might want to get that page translated *hint*, not to mention Tom Bell has uploaded that image to several websites, also how do you know it's the source :-)?
Matthew00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
We know it was there first because google has picked it up but it hasn't picked up the image on wikipedia given the rate at which google indexs wikipedia that strongly suggests the other site had it first. "sly159" also uploaded
this notice the jpg compression? A little odd for a family photo. This also provides fairly solid evidence of off wikipedia orgin. It is fairly safe to assume that the photos are shown in the order they are submited
we know that the second photo has been on the net since June 12th 2006.
Geni01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Exactly why few people will submit free imagery to Wikipedia, a hole in one there my friend! I don't see any policy however saying we drop AGF and make uploaders prove images are free though.. point it out?
Matthew02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Who said that AGF also applies to possible copyvios? When there is strong doubt that an image or text is indeed free, the uploader has to prove it. --
88.134.140.6402:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Everything is a posible copyvio. In this case the resolution, the lack of metadata, the pervious appearence on other sites say copyvio.
Geni12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment -- *******! This entire conversation got really stupid really fast. You guys stop flaming each other, okay? See
WP:CIVIL. As for the photo in question, I believe in good faith the photo is a family photo. As it is PD, it can go everywhere, you see. That may be why it has been picked up elsewhere. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Guroadrunner (
talk •
contribs)
13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks like it was
on tomsnet.net first, in January 2005. And note that that's actually the same file; the other website
Dantadd found has a version with more noticeable jpeg artifacts, as if it's been slightly sharpened and then recompressed.—Celithemis21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep absent compelling evidence against (and certainly no OTRS takedown notice) I think we should assume good faith. There is compelling evidence to support that
Tomsnet is who he says he is. This is close, but I think we should grant him the opportunity to verify his identity / validate the status of the image. --SelketTalk15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, or else the policy should be rewritten to say "Do not upload your own photos to Wikipedia if you've uploaded them anywhere else, unless you provide a signed form in triplicate to the Wikimedia Foundation that you are indeed the photographer and copyright owner of said images, and swear on a stack of Bibles (or Qur'ans, where appropriate) that copyright doesn't belong to someone else."
DHowell23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, for now, as per
WP:AGF. Also, I have sent an email to the company that registered the website, asking them to forward it to the webmaster of tomsnet.net to confirm or deny
User:Tomsnet's identity. - Oops, forgot to sign.
Blur476000:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
wow! this is a tough place! ok all, here's the answer to the mystery. The tomsnet.net site is our family website (and has been for years). I added a page in 2005 (tomsnet.net/kristenbell.htm) which was cited above. The picture was taken by her mom on the set during season one. I cropped it, and stripped it for easier download and put it on that page. It does not suprise me that the pic was copied to fansites.. pretty easy to do. I still have the original pic, uncropped. Now, as a wise man said earlier in this discussion: how about assuming a little good faith? Regards to all who keep the wiki project going. --
Tomsnet 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted name for security. thnx. --
Tomsnet16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply