< August 20	August 22 >

August 21

Image:MalcolmTamara.jpg

Image:MalcolmTamara.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted image showing a couple drinking tea. Fails #8. Damiens.rf 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are multiple images in the article, including one from around the same time period. This image is neither discussed, nor essential to understanding any part of the article. Shell ^babelfish 10:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MalcFras97.JPG

Image:MalcFras97.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted headshot of a living Australian. Many alternatives are available. Damiens.rf 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article already has a likeness of Malcolm Fraser at a similar age, and there is no discussion of this image in the article. Kevin (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criteria claims this is a historical photo, yet there is no discussion of the photo on the article. Other similar photographs already exist on the article and this currently serves no purpose but decoration. Shell ^babelfish 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Friendsalovestory.jpg

Image:Friendsalovestory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Simo206 (notify | contribs).

Why do we need a book cover when the book is not relevant enough to be discussed? Damiens.rf 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be fair use in an article about the book, but there isn't one. Serves only to decorate Angela Bassett. Kevin (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate for the article it is being used on; no critical discussion of book or cover of any significant length. Shell ^babelfish 10:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oligarchs.jpg

Image:Oligarchs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing men shanking hands, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have boldly removed this image from 3 articles which did not have fair-use criteria on the description page. I believe a case could be made for inclusion on Boris Yeltsin since the section it appears in is dedicated to describing these men and their influence. I believe the picture, including the recognition from Yelstin and the official surroundings convey an understanding of the position these men came to hold in a way that the article alone could not. However, I would strongly suggest that someone with better knowledge of this particular meeting and its significance update the fair-use rationale to better explain its use. Shell ^babelfish 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image does not add to my understanding in the slightest. I simply do not see what Shell says there is to see in this image... Fails NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dubai Millennium.jpg

Image:Dubai Millennium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

Uploading non-notable pictures form news agencies to illustrate articles about the image subject (and not about the picture) is like kicking a dead horse. Damiens.rf 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. What reason are you offering for deletion (from policy)? The horse in the picture is used to illustrate an article about said horse.... Fritzpoll (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated press will be glad to allow you to use this picture to illustrate an article about said horse, as long as you agree to pay a small fee. What's "fair" about using it freely? --Damiens.rf 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Damien, where in your nomination does it say that's why you nominated it? I was asking a genuine question, since my mind-reading powers are acting up today Fritzpoll (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable pictures form news agencies to illustrate articles about the image subject ". I.e., our use is not transformative. It's competitive. -Damiens.rf 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth is there a statement by this image stating that we must "pay" for its use??? "Uploading non-notable pictures????" An image which identifies a dead horse during its life and racing career which is discussed in the article is non notable?? It is without a doubt perfectly appropriate and generally acceptable on here. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Notable picture of a horse" is not the same as a "Picture of a notable horse". --Damiens.rf 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you think this image is not a "notable picture" of the horse? What is then? One standing up on his hind legs and flashing a large wide grin at the photpgrapher? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I can tell, this picture is not notable. A notable picture would have be commented about by reliable sources. Winning awards also helps the case. --Damiens.rf 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if the picture itself is notable? Its rationale and use plainly satisfies fair use criteria. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glrockwell.jpg

Image:Glrockwell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GeorgeC (notify | contribs).

No description. Image not used. Damiens.rf 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that this image appears to originate from the BBC, I would want to see a bit more proof that this work is in the public domain. Shell ^babelfish 10:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canavan holding Sam - 2003.jpg

Image:Canavan holding Sam - 2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Macca7174 (notify | contribs).

No reason to use this image from a news source when we have a better free alternative image available: Image:Peter Canavan - SFC 2005 cc 3.0.jpg Damiens.rf 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable as per Damiens.rf Shell ^babelfish 10:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canavan 2003 All Star - Sean Kelly.jpg

Image:Canavan 2003 All Star - Sean Kelly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Macca7174 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing men shanking hands, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no critical commentary about the photograph or any historical significance in the article. Unlikely that a simple photo of someone receiving the award is significantly different than text describing the event. Shell ^babelfish 10:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soe Win.jpg

Image:Soe Win.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "a single image of the person is certainly permissible" - Go explain that to AP. I don't think they would buy. --Damiens.rf 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the nominator's contention to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use policy's criteria, as showed by the detailed justification. IFD is not a place to advance a minority interpretation of fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't cite a talk page, especially where the response to your question is ambiguous. howcheng {chat} 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The detailed rationale says it all. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. About WP:NFCC#2, that is being challenged on this ifd, it simply uses a boilerplate empty no-explaniation: "the image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.". --Damiens.rf 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what: There was a free image of this man on Commons since October 2007. --Damiens.rf 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fernando Poe, Jr..jpg

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.

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - per NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) and being an example of what is seen here as unacceptable use. There are many images of Poe that could either be used as fair use (publicity photos), or better ask one of the flickr users to release under a free licence - Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fernando Poe, Jr..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Wild West guy (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the nominator's contention to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use policy's criteria, as showed by the detailed justification. IFD is not a place to advance a minority interpretation of fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should be able to find an official photo or a promotional release photo, which would certainly be better (less detrimental to the copyright holder) than this. Alternately, can someone ask the website owner here to release his photo under a free license? This would also be a good alternative to the BBC photo (even under fair use) because I frankly doubt that this guy is hoping to license out his random photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another less bad alternative would be a screenshot (tiny portion of the original work). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (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.

Image:Carol Park.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Keep - consensus is that it is NOT a news owned photo and satisfied the NFCC requirments - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carol Park.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J Milburn (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about me not understanding the NFCC. The image is not taken from a news source, but from the personal photos belonging to the family, who released the image to the BBC as part of their campaign to clear Gordon's name. As such, the image has no commercial value, and its use here could be argued to be beneficial to the copyright holder (probably Gordon, alternatively, one of the couple's children) in publicising the case. This article contains a significant amount of biographical/character information on Carol (with her being the second person, after Gordon) and so if a non-free image of deceased individual can be justified on a biographical stub, it can be justified here. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that this might be a personal photo, but my goodness, that's just a horrible image - its pixelated and blurry to the point that I wouldn't be certain it actually does even a decent job of identifying the subject. If these were release by the family, is there any chance we could find an archived copy that at least does her some justice or are they all of this low quality? Shell ^babelfish 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has been dead for many years, and wasn't a celebrity. I have seen others, but this image is one that is often used around the 'net, and was released as part of the campaign to help clear Gordon's name. Others were released for specific press use- for instance, I believe her brother released some photos. These ones have significantly more commercial value, and so are not appropriate for use here. 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. Until better quality image is found. Ty 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that she was an ordinary person until she went missing (at which point the BBC could no longer take a photo of her), this photo is pretty much certainly not copyrighted by the BBC even if they reprinted it. Keep per J Milburn. No commercial value. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. This really seems like a crop from a birthday party picture, that the family owns and released for the media. [BBC doesn't credits anyone in "Carol+Park" many articles using this same picture. --Damiens.rf 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Book cover - Straight from the heart.jpg

Image:Book cover - Straight from the heart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vimalkalyan (notify | contribs).

Do we need to show a copyrighted book cover for a book that deserves no more than 1 line of text in the article ("He released his most recent autobiography, titled Straight from the Heart in 2004") ? Damiens.rf 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kapil awarded Wisden Indian cricketer of century.jpg

Image:Kapil awarded Wisden Indian cricketer of century.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vimalkalyan (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted picture of a living Indian. Damiens.rf 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:78733.jpg

Image:78733.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssmb123 (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted picture of a living Indian. Damiens.rf 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muttawakil bbc.jpg

Image:Muttawakil bbc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Max rspct (notify | contribs).

Picture of a living individual copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garth Joseph.JPG

Image:Garth Joseph.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick81aku (notify | contribs).

Picture of a living individual copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mo brennan dbe.jpg

Image:Mo brennan dbe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beaconboy123 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a living individual copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg

Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deacon of Pndapetzim (notify | contribs).

Picture of a living individual copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be possible to produce a free alternative. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herty Lewites.jpg

Image:Herty Lewites.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LaNicoya (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite nom's contention's to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use criteria. IFD isn't a place to debate the merits or lack thereof of this policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stefan Terlezki.jpg

Image:Stefan Terlezki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be replaced with photo released to press (better fair use case, not impinging on commercial use). At http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4724607.stm they reprint a campaign poster with a photo. This is also nonfree but is a better nonfree image to use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spry.jpg

Image:Spry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mrwikipedia (notify | contribs).

Image is not used. Damiens.rf 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you slap a ((Di-orphaned fair use|<date>)) tag on it, for deletion in seven days per WP:CSD#I5. Maxim (☎) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not fair use. --Damiens.rf 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vicarcivilpart.jpg

Image:Vicarcivilpart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WJBscribe (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). It can't be that hard to flash a gay marriage in the United Kingdom. Damiens.rf 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sturrockplayoff.jpg

Image:Sturrockplayoff.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TomScott2610 (notify | contribs).

I doubt BBC put this picture to Public Domain. Damiens.rf 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be easy to produce a free picture of Paul Sturrock, who makes public appearances frequently in his present position as manager of Plymouth Argyle. Therefore this picture fails the first criteria. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:42770703 rabbit ap203b.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Keep - in this case it is not a press-owned photo and so seems to pass NFCC#2. As what seems a unique image it also passes NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 06:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:42770703 rabbit ap203b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fnar (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The animal is near-extinct and has only been seen 3 times EVER, I am not sure how we could get more "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" non-replaceable and a single low quality image is minimal enough to not harm economic interests. MBisanz ^talk 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the BBC marked this image AP, it is clearly not an AP photo (do you really think the AP is hunting in the woods for a near-extinct animal?). The original uncropped photo can be seen here and has a timestamp on top of the image and is clearly an amateur photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the BBC itself says this was taken using a camera trap.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ap may have bought the rights to distribute this photo... but it may also just be distributing it under "fair use" itself. Hard to determine. If this Ap (nor any other news agency) holds the copyright for this pic, my concerns are addressed. --Damiens.rf 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, if it's a camera trap, it may be public domain by virtue of not having any human creativity, much as security camera images are. howcheng {chat} 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm... now that's a good point! --Damiens.rf 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orange snow in Siberia.jpg

The result of the debate was: delete

--Maxim (☎) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orange snow in Siberia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maxim (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you weren't so patronizing to other users; people interpret NFCC differently. On the subject of the image itself, it meets all criteria of the NFCC; most importantly, it heavily adds to the article. I've tweaked the caption, too. Maxim (☎) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be highly interested in an interpretation of fair use law that would allow us to freely use copyrighted images from news agency. (And of course, I don't see how an interpretation of NFCC that is more permissive than the fair use law could be of any use). --Damiens.rf 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I've deleted the file to save the trouble of the process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)

Image:Yone Minagawa.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - for all the debate below it is a commercially owned press photo which is both orphaned (now) and was used in an unacceptable way - Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yone Minagawa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

also: Image:Yone Minagawa114.jpg, duplicate uploaded today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also: Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG, another alternative, same copyright status (AP photograph). See note by Damiens.rf below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inadequate nomination. Image has a full rationale and caption on the image within the article identifying the women on her 114th birthday which a free alterative cannot provide as it doesn't exist and this is both encyclopedic, beneficial to the reader and genrally acceptable on here.

Keep She is dead, it is unlikely any more pictures will be taken of her, we can have a non-free image of her since she is dead. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not! You really argued about "irreplaceable images" AND "deceased individuals"! Here comes one more off-topic deletion discussion! Please, please, please, please explain how is it fair to freely use an image a news agency spent money for taking and asks money for reusing? And explain how does the woman's death or the lack of an alternative ever help our case? --Damiens.rf 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over the subject of fair use many times before, using an image to describe a dead person from a news agency would be fair use because we are using it in an educational, encyclopedic setting. We are tagging it as non-free so other people will know that and attempt not to use it in a manner that would harm the economic interests of the copyrightholder. MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we are harming the copyright owner. If the biggest free website on the net uses it, its news value decreases. Thus, the incentive to buy a license for it for a commercial news outlet that wants to report about that lady is lessened. We are in direct competition here with anybody else who might want to commercially report about the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All of the main global news agencies used this image to illustrate her. Clearly they didn't all take the image. It is used commercially and likely to have been sene my millions of people so if you are under the delusion that is it somehow a private image in which the creator charges an exorbitant fee to the user than you are sorely mistaken, If you are under the impression that fair use images cannot be used because for some reason we have to pay for them you are going to find several hundred thousand images to try to delete. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they use our image, they are violating the copyright, the same as the person who uploaded it from the news agency would if they attempted to use it for a commercial purpose. Regardless of our actions, commercial use would be impermissible. MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a copyright violation, plain and simple. The AP charges for the use of its photos. We cannot use the AP photo without paying. This is not a transformative use of the photograph. Furthermore, it is not necessary to the reader to see what she looks like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note (for this and all below where Nyttend has made the same point): Speedy keep is out of the question. There are a dozen or so NFC criteria, and an image has to pass every one of them. The nominator was merely trying to forestall a misunderstanding by pointing out that it's not this one NFCC that is broken but another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't: the nominator is challenging the very notion of fair use, saying that the idea of having a fair-use picture for identification of a dead person is invalid. This is at odds with common practice, as can easily be seen: the nominator's concern is with the idea of using pictures produced by someone else's money without paying for them, not with the idea that it's okay under certain circumstances that this image doesn't fulfill. That concern is properly taken up at other places, such as the policy village pump. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is when this "someone else" that produced the picture has a business model based on licensing these very pictures. --Damiens.rf 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because something is common practice here doesn't make it right (or legal). See [2] for a discussion why. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A different image was uploaded to replace this one at Yone Minagawa. The rationale says the image has "appeared in numerous other newspapers" but that "the original photographer is not mentioned". The rationale further speculates that our free use "is believed to not affect the [unknown] copywright holder". The source given is a direct url to a jpg file (what's technically invalid) in the daylife.com domain. Some research shows that the page displaying this image on daylife.com credits this image to "AP Photo by Kyodo News". Should a new IFD be created, or can we just make Image:Yone_Minagawa3.JPEG join this nomination? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note at the top. In any case, at least one of these will have to be deleted again per WP:NFCC#3, even if the other is kept. The uploader might want to make up their mind now which they prefer – this IfD will be applied to either the one or the other, whatever the outcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. NFCC2 allows no debate; community consensus is not at liberty to apply it or not. Deletion is absolutely mandatory here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : No debate? Wrong. One of the questions in this IfD is "Does this image violate NFCC2"? If consensus decides that it does not violate NFCC2, then NFCC2 cannot be applied as a reason to delete the image. If consensus decides that the image does violate NFCC2, then it must be deleted. Note, however, that whether or not the image fails NFCC2 is a matter of debate among the community. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg

Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ugur Basak (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing an airplane's nose, does not really help us in understanding the text in the article. Damiens.rf 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Is there any way to replace a picture of this specific airplane at that specific time? Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. A picture of the actual event is very helpful for a reader to enter imaginatively into the reality described by words, which a picture is worth a thousand of. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Princess Alice.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - there is certainly some confusion here. The image is a press image, which we are using to illustrate the subject rather than to comment on the image itself. This is not an acceptable use of a press photo. There are photographs which, while copyright, could be used to illustrate the subject while meeting all of the Wikipedia fair use requirements - [3] - indeed an editor may be able to email webeditor@royal.gsx.gov.uk and get permission for this simply - Peripitus (Talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Princess Alice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by OldakQuill (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of WP:NFCC. Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hong Kong handover.jpg

Image:Hong Kong handover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astrotrain (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Also, image is hardly necessary in all of the 7 articles it's currently being used in. Damiens.rf 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Anyway, if it doesn't belong on some of the articles, remove it from the four articles that don't have rationales. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. As fu rationale says, "it is a unique historical event." An encyclopedia without an image of it is deficient. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oldhamriots1.jpg

Image:Oldhamriots1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jhamez84 (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I uploaded this file in my infancy on Wikipedia. No strong feelings if it stays or goes. :) --Jza84 | Talk 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. Significantly helps readers' understanding of the topic. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riverdance over.jpg

Image:Riverdance over.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riverdance side.jpg

Image:Riverdance side.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Damiens.rf 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unique image of an event about the subject itself, would not be replaceable as the debris has been removed. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! --Damiens.rf 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Hi, Mjroots. You haven't addressed the real concerns raised on the nomination. Please, explain how is it ok to take the image bbc spent money to produce and reproduce it freely on our website? --Damiens.rf 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation under US law is at Fair use. Ty 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why has the image been deleted when there is a consensus to keep it? Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 24. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_sctv_1.jpg

Image:Logo_sctv_1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arief_S. (notify | contribs).

Used in a fair use gallery, the article contains the current logo, and doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_sctv_2.jpg

Image:Logo_sctv_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arief_S. (notify | contribs).

Used in a fair use gallery, the article contains the current logo, and doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gowcar.jpeg

Image:Gowcar.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Isabela84 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing a destroyrd automobile, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event discussed in the article. Damiens.rf 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. It enables the reader to see directly the event and this makes it real in a way that cannot be done by words alone. It is a significant image. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dermotbb.jpg

Image:Dermotbb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paddy More (notify | contribs).

Image:Miller and Monroe.jpg

Image:Miller and Monroe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Halo (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing a happy couple, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it helps us to understand the text. If it didn't then people wouldn't take wedding photos. They'd just write a description. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stockline plastics factory glasgow.jpg

Image:Stockline plastics factory glasgow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fabiform (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable, and yes it probably shows an "historic event" and yes it probably makes the article better. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If you wish to contest Wikipedia's fair use policy, then there are several better places to do it than here at the Images and media for deletion noticeboard -- like here, perhaps? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Balcony disaster.jpg

Image:Balcony disaster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blood Red Sandman (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable, and yes it probably shows an "historic event" and yes it probably makes the article better. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Josiascunningham 150.jpg

Image:Josiascunningham 150.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Counter-revolutionary (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Craiginches prison.jpg

Image:Craiginches prison.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CHacker (notify | contribs).

Isn't it possible for someone to take a picture of this building, so that we don't have to copy a picture from a news agency? Damiens.rf 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chilean blob.jpg

Image:Chilean blob.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable, and yes it probably shows an "historic event" and yes it probably makes the article better. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Andrew-Walker-Massmurderer.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - the policy is rather clear on this. We don't use press photos (which we must assume this is given the lack of a source on the linked website) to illustrate subjects. They are only used in critical commentary of the photo itself. Item 6 of images under Wp:NFC unnaceptable use clearly states that we cannot use "A photo from a press agency , unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Andrew-Walker-Massmurderer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECMS (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria. Although he is still alive, he's incarcerated for life: it's altogether unreasonable to expect that someone could legally and safely take a picture of the guy and place it under a free license. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ian MacGregor.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - the policy is rather clear on this. We don't use press photos (which we must assume this is given the lack of a source on the linked website) to illustrate subjects. They are only used in critical commentary of the photo itself. Item 6 of images under Wp:NFC unnaceptable use clearly states that we cannot use "A photo from a press agency , unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ian MacGregor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cutler (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Uploader is making a WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the uploader I did believe that this was exactly the sort of image/ use that passed fair use.Cutler (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ScotlandvEstonia.jpg

Image:ScotlandvEstonia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmorrison230582 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing men playing football, does not really help us in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 15:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a highly unusual picture because there is no opposing team. See the article for a fuller explanation of why that situation happened. The image cannot be replaced by a free alternative because the "game" (such as it was) will never happen again. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The event was surely unusual, but this picture doesn't really helps one to understand the situation. I'm not arguing for it to be replaced by another picture. I'm arguing for no no-picture to be used at all, since we can fully understand the text without them. --Damiens.rf 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in itself is unique, and illustrates clearly how daft the situation was. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find us sources that discuss the image itself, not the event depicted in the image. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the first page of results for a relevant google search describe that scene. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is disputing that the event was notable; tell me something about the photograph and its influence on culture or other events or other photographic works. Give me some way that WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6 cannot apply. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. It is a flawed guideline and needs to be revised. Ty 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jack and Rose of 1997 film Titanic.jpg

Image:Jack and Rose of 1997 film Titanic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture, showing a happy couple, does not really help us in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images of films are copyrighted; that is why we have the fair-use policy. There is nothing objectionable to using this image in the Supercouple article. How does it not help us understand the article? That section is discussing film supercouples. It mentions supercouple Jack and Rose, who happen to be a part of the highest-grossing film ever. The image displays these characters, who are being discussed/addressed within the article, which is no different than the many other copyrighted images of fictional characters accompanying content being discussed in regular, good or featured articles on Wikipedia. If this image were just for show, I would see your point. But it is not just for show, and thus I do not see your point. Furthermore, it is the only image within that section, and is the only image in that section for a reason, given this fictional couple's impact. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image of fictional characters is no different the showing the happy image of Bianca and Maggie in the Gay and lesbian section of the Supercouple article, who are also being addressed/discussed. The use of these images are in complete correspondence with Wikipedia's image policy. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also added more to this image's caption, which further relates directly to the text. And must state that this couple is not exactly "happy" at this moment in the film (they were happy right before that moment, sure). Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with first born, Shiloh.jpg

Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with first born, Shiloh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted magazine cover, showing a happy couple, does not really help us in understanding the article. Damiens.rf 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images of magazines are copyrighted; that is why we have the fair-use policy. There is nothing objectionable to using this image in the Supercouple article. How does it not help us understand the article? That section is discussing celebrity supercouples. It mentions the couple's child Shiloh, and how that child was featured on the cover of Hello! magazine. The image displays the child and that fact, who is being discussed/addressed within the article along with her parents. Featuring an image in this way is no different than the many other copyrighted magazine images that accompany content being discussed in regular, good or featured articles on Wikipedia. If this image were just for show, I would see your point. But it is not just for show, and thus I do not see your point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See More Demi Moore for a valid use of a magazine cover. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how the use of that image is any different than the use of a magazine cover in this case, and I can also point out a few examples of my own. Showing images where the content being discussed can be easily conveyed by just words is when fair-use policy is not applicable. In this case, there is no way that a reader can easily guess what the cover Shiloh appeared on looked/looks like. The image is therefore providing the reader with the knowledge of the content (notable content) that took place at that time that cannot be attained by simply using the imagination. Not to mention, that section mentions nothing of Jolie and Pitt appearing on the cover with the child, though that can be arranged. The use of this image is in complete correspondence with Wikipedia's image policy. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please don't preface each comment with "keep"; it creates the illusion that there is more support than actually exists. Secondly, More Demi Moore is an article about about the magazine cover itself: This Vanity Fair cover in and of itself became infamous and led to a number of parodies, including the film poster for Naked Gun 33⅓ which then led to a lawsuit Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Is this Hello cover anywhere near equivalent? If it is, then you are free to add more information to the Supercouple article but you have to talk about this specific magazine cover and that commentary must be cited to reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, I was not trying to give the allusion of anything. I did not feel that I had properly voted. Secondly, are you kidding me? People paid more than $4.1 million for the North American rights, while British magazine Hello! obtained the international rights for roughly $3.5 million; the total rights sale earned up to $10 million worldwide, and became the most expensive celebrity image of all time. That is in this article and is discussed in this article. This image is extremely notable. I would even say more notable than that Demi Moore image you cited, since it became the most expensive celebrity image of all time (though it is not anymore). Pitt and Jolie giving the money received for publicly publishing the image to charity is also mentioned in the article. It almost makes no sense not to have an image in that section about this super image that is discussed in that section. Sure, the Pitt and Jolie articles do not feature it, but that would be overkill, anyway, and it is completely justifiable that this image is included within this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I see the part about this in the Angelina Jolie article has been updated; now the most expensive celebrity image is something else (which is why I tweaked my above comment), but is still about Pitt and Jolie. I will now have to tweak that part of the Supercouple article. But all in all, this image is still notable and is still discussed in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg

Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable, and yes it probably shows an "historic event". What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the bit Howcheng cites is intended as an example of what isn't appropriate in general. As there's no way of creating new pictures of this event, it's irreplaceable, and fulfills the fair use criteria. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- News photos are generally not re-creatable because news events only happen once. Once an airplane crashes, it can't crash again, so duh, no free replacement will be forthcoming. However, that does not give us license to violate the BBC's copyright. There are four factors for determining fair use under U.S. law, one of them being the purpose of the work -- to meet this, you can use the work in a transformative manner, or you can use it for educational or non-profit purposes. The latter two are irrelevant here because they are incompatible with the Foundation's goals (and regardless, they would probably be rendered moot because Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites on the Internet, meaning our "small" infringement reaches a wide audience). We are not using this in a transformative manner, so there's no way we come even close to this criterion, and there's no way this would qualify as fair use, even if our NFCC weren't intentionally more restrictive than what the law might allow. howcheng {chat} 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the nominator's rationale, but I strongly disagree with it. As Nyttend says, there is no way a free image could ever be prepared for this historical event. As the uploader, I stand by my original judgment that this photo qualifies as fair use. --John (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, a free image is not possible and rmeoving the image would be removing encyclopedic information which the image provides. The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it this way: If Britannica wanted to use this image, do you think they could get away with not paying for it it and claiming fair use? No way in hell would that be possible! The BBC would rightfully demand payment. So why is OK for us to do so? Fair use can be claimed when the photo itself is news (as opposed to the event depicted in the photo). For a British frame of reference, see Profumo Affair where the woman's photo played a role in the scandal (although for my money, that article still needs expansion on the story of the photo). If you're American, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is the prime example, where we have a statue, book, and film just about that photo. What's so special about this airplane crash photo? It doesn't have to have the same influence as the two I cited but there has to be something. We cannot just violate copyright because it makes our article look better. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, imagine the hypothetical situation of one defending this use of this image before a court based on the provided rationale: "Sir, I haven't violated BBC's copyright on this picture! My use falls under the fair use provision of U.S. Law because (1) This BBC picture is exactly what I needed, (2) I have a personal policy of never paying for licensing images and (3) I couldn't produce an alternative picture myself. See, Sir?" --Damiens.rf 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hilarious, sir, hilarious. Now I have got my breath back and wiped my eyes, I will reply. At present we have regard to "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." I continue to contend strongly that this picture meets our expectations of how this policy is usually interpreted. There are venues where changing this can be discussed; mass nominations like this are likely to be seen as slightly unhelpful. Good luck in your crusade. --John (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Free image is clearly not possible, clearly falls within fair use rationale. Justin talk 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kermit_roosevelt_20s.jpg

Image:Kermit_roosevelt_20s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SimonATL (notify | contribs).

No source; the source URL provided is not the source of this image; thus there is no way to prove this image's provenance. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg

Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emerson7 (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is being used for identification of a now-dead person: the picture fulfills our fair use criteria, especially as (as he is now dead) no free equivalent can be created. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lew Anderson.jpg

Image:Lew Anderson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pegasus (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news source. Damiens.rf 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is being used for identification of a now-dead person: the picture fulfills our fair use criteria, especially as (as he is now dead) no free equivalent can be created. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17 nuxhall 190 2.jpg

Image:17 nuxhall 190 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meckstroth.jm (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is being used for identification of a now-dead person: the picture fulfills our fair use criteria, especially as (as he is now dead) no free equivalent can be created. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rostropovich at the Wall.jpg

Image:Rostropovich at the Wall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Y (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing a musician performing, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used on his article to illustrate an event that the BBC says was reported worldwide: I don't see how any image could illustrate this better. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it absolutely stupefying to read that a picture of an event does not help us to understand the text. Texts and images complement each other and are each able to communicate aspects that the other medium cannot. If that were not the case, there would be no need for pictures, anywhere, ever. We would just have texts. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bo190.jpg

Image:Bo190.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jean Mattéoli.jpg

Image:Jean Mattéoli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blofeld of SPECTRE (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency. Damiens.rf 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible. The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're wrong. See [4] for a lengthy discussion. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's an advocate's pov, not a judge's decision. If the Foundation felt that were the case, it would issue a statement to that effect. Meanwhile, the image meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Litani1978.jpg

Image:Litani1978.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheFEARgod (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing Israeli tanks in Southern Lebanon, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, delete --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does help an understanding of the text by depicting the historical reality. If such a picture does not help the understanding of the text, then we should remove all the images from Battle of Waterloo, for example, as a waste of bandwidth. Meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Footballers of year - Stephen O'Neill, Aaron Kernan.jpg

Image:Footballers of year - Stephen O'Neill, Aaron Kernan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Macca7174 (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing tow happy men, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does them being happy contribute to the deletion policy? They have won the most prestigious individual honours in their sport.--Macca7174 _talk 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And they are holding those statuettes to prove it.--Macca7174 _talk 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AttasFather.jpg

The result of the debate was:

- Delete - Image is a clear example of unacceptable use of a press image coupled with a lack of significance (NFCC#8) - Per some of the below debate, the image can simply be replaced by a short piece of sourced text - Peripitus (Talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AttasFather.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture, showing two men chatting, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Uploader has made a good faith attempt to explain why this image qualifies as fair use, and nominator has not seen fit to offer the uploader's good faith attempt at explanation a good faith meaningful reply. Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I good-faithly fail to understand your good-faith argument for keeping the image. --Damiens.rf 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ones good faith in the nom's diligent research before nominating the image is severely stretched, when he describes it as "two men chatting", when a) Atta was refusing to "chat" (see the video here and b) the person in the white top is Liz Jackson, who is a woman. Images of events do help us to gain a greater apprehension of that event. the nom states this is an important event. Image meets WP:NFCC. See also WT:NFC#Press agency photos. Ty 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be replaced with: "Liz Jackson" tried to interview Atta's father. She met him in the street, but he declined talking to her. This conveys exactly the same amount of information, or rather: a lot more. The photograph contributes nothing at all, since it's so small and blurry one can't even distinguish what it shows. Plus, the scene of the attempted interview isn't even discussed further in either of the articles in question, so it's clearly not of crucial significance to the understanding of the whole article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WashingtonThirdCongressDistrict.jpg

Image:WashingtonThirdCongressDistrict.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonel (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image with uncropped, higher quality version in alternate image format (PNG vs. JPG) on Commons (Image:WA03 109.png). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the better version on Commons. I'm pretty sure this should apply to all of the Washington districts, first through ninth. Have you checked the rest of them? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WashingtonSixthCongressDistrict.jpg

Image:WashingtonSixthCongressDistrict.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonel (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image with uncropped, higher quality version in preferable alternate image format (PNG) available on Commons (Image:WA06 109.png). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]