Sneaky image vandalism/duplicate of Commons image with decreased value. The image is a derivative of an image that I took and uploaded to the page. It is a crop of another image listed on October 16. To quote a recent edit summary from Bobbarker1291: "I Changed The Photo to a more recent one, Please don't change it back! The words on the sign are about me!" Can this be speedy deleted as vandalism?
Royalbroil02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't call it blatant vandalism, but yes, they're both improperly licensed derivatives -- delete them both. --
RG201:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Unless the uploader can demonstrate that they are able to legally approve the use of the HOBS corporate logo on Wikipedia, I would strongly support removing both of the 'explanatory' line drawing images as a violation of a copyright held by the HOBS corporation.
Deconstructhis04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
HOBS logo in the corner shows that this is either an advert for HOBS, or is a copyvio from HOBS. No evidence given that it's in the public domain as claimed by uploader.
Tempshill03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not a free image because the permission prohibits modification (must be "reproduced accurately"). It fails the non-free content policy because it is replaceable with a free image of such a medal. But|
seriously|
folks03:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The only change that was made to the image was a reduction in white space (from memory) - with no change to the image of the medal itself - if it will make you happy, then I will replace this image with the original from the NZDF with the white space left in. I believe your argument about this being 'non-free content' is false, as the NZ Crown Copyright states that it "may be reproduced free of charge" - hence by definition it is free content.
PalawanOz08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The point isn't that I want you to post it unmodified. The point is that the permission is limited to unmodified versions, which is too restrictive for free use here. And since it's replaceable with a truly free image of the medal, it can't be used per our non-free content policy either.
In particular, the NZ Crown Copyright notice that comes up on Wikipedia states "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free licence, since modification is not permitted, however most images uploaded under this licence may be allowed when a fair use rationale is given." I think your proposal to delete is in error.
PalawanOz06:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The problem with this image is the sufficiency of the fair use rationale. This is a replaceable nonfree image, so it can't be kept. This would be the same if it were a copyrighted photo of the medal.
Calliopejen102:42, 30 October 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.
Agree this flag was never the flag of Northern ireland it was solely a governmental banner used to represent the former devolved government from 1953 to 1972 which was dissolved in 1973.--
Padraig21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. As a Commons image, doesn't this dicussion need to occur there? (Does "moving" here actually affect the image in Commons? Will it not still be available here under the "contentious" name.)
Guliolopez11:30, 18 October 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.
Invalid fair use: the image is not used in a article about film: it is used for illsutration of Russian mythological creature. `'
Míkka18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a pop culture representation of said mythological creature, as the image caption clearly states, and is the only pop culture version of this creature on its page despite the page having a large pop culture section (which would be completly devoid of images if it where deteted and thus detrimental to readers). And it is fair use.
Nubula10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure it's appropriate to keep it in both articles, or at all, but there does seem to be a consensus to keep without any rebuttal. Image kept. --
RG222:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)reply