I do not believe that an artist's impression of a proposed interchange meets
WP:NFCC#8 (significance). The artists in all likelihood have not given permission for anyone to just take the pictures from the web sites and use them freely. A link to the copyright holders' web sites should be used instead. We can use free pictures of the under-construction stations should be used for primary visual identification instead of artists' impressions of the finished product. —
Remember the dot(
talk)00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
An artist's impression, whilst copyright the owner of the image, is used extensively in promotion of the current construction project. The same image is used on websites, flyers, shopping centre displays, and community meetings to display to the public what the end construction will look like. Provided there is a fair use rationale supplied, these promotional images are used to illustrate the design of the project in question. --
Brenotalk07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
These promotional images are of significance and are being used extensively identifying the proposed station, as outlined by Breno above already. Fair use rationale has been supplied for all of the above images. Often free pictures of the under construction stations are unavailable (due to inaccessibility, or the station is still under planning and non-existent), hence the artist's impression is used instead. These artist impression images should not be deleted unless a replacable free image can be found. --
Pikablu053008:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Multiple reasons: (i) non-free image with no fair-use rationale; (ii) it adds nothing useful to the page which uses it; but most importantly, (iii), it's an image of a topless 12-year-old girl. I know Wikipedia is
WP:NOT#CENSORED, but this image is actually potentially illegal under US
child pornography law, and as such I don't think we should take the risk of hosting it.
Terraxos17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Child Bride is in the public domain, so it's a free image, so number 2 is moot, and it isn't illegal, potentially or otherwise, as the film is sold with these images publically, available widely, and can be downloaded in this form from archive.org currently. Whether it should exist in the article is an editorial decision for sure, but there's no current reason for deletion.
Ed Wood's Wig17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply