The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decorative non-free image. There's already a non-free image being used to identify the main subject of the article. We don't need to portray him in every one of his daily situations. Damiens.rf 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: No consensus needed. Orphaned, non-free image will be automatically deleted as tagged. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A BadJPEG superseded by File:Zee Marathi Logo.png §§§§ Alquerytalk 02:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OR, LQ, no stated purpose or encyc. use Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non free image lacking a complete source, is said to be from some unspecified newspaper cover. Used to illustrate a bio and some other articles. Fails WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#10 in all articles and WP:NFCC#8 outside the bio. damiens.rf 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, seems to be Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio (coat of arms for org established 2006) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned; needs to be rotated for any use. Quite possibly unfree based on the date on the sign, regardless of the licensing of the image itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Average-to-low quality image of someone playing a guitar. Article about the band was deleted. Orphaned, no encyclopedic use since we presumably have much better images of people playing guitar. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Average-to-low quality image of a band. Article about the band was deleted. Orphaned, no encyclopedic use since we presumably have much better images of bands performing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: closed as irrelevant', as the image is present on commons at the name listed immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: closed as irrelevant', as the image is present on commons at the name listed immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Oscar is copyrighted and already have a picture of it. We would be hardly justified in using this one as non-free. damiens.rf 17:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions:
all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration, and
neither the marks “Academy Award®” nor “Oscar®” may be used to describe awards given by organizations other than the Academy. (An award may be described as “the Uruguayan equivalent of the Oscar Award,” but not as “the Uruguayan Oscar.”)
Guys, you've completely misinterpreted the regulations: "... symbols and marks in stories and articles..." refers to editors using a symbol or a mark (not a photograph) of the Oscar, like a TV Station logo on a TV screen, as if the article or photograph were officially sanction, originating from the Academy. ie I haven't put any symbol or mark on my photograph of the Academy/an Oscar/etc. My photograph is not a symbol or mark of the Oscar.
20. a. is correct and the “©A.M.P.A.S.®” (without the quote marks!) needs to appear on the SK page.
20. b. is completely irrelevant. This is about a genuine Academy Award awarded by the AMPAS itself.
Under American law 'fair use', my photograph doesn't even qualify for examination as I've already given permission for it's use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This issue reminds me of another use of copyrighted objects, and in a FA no less -this article and this article both use many many photos of copyrighted merit badges. It was determined in the FA review that photos of the copyrighted badges was allowed, even if they were all NFC. I'm not sure if that translates directly to this issue, but it seems to me that if all those copyrighted badges can pass muster in a FA, the Oscar image is perfectly acceptable under fair use. Since the photographer in this case has given permission for free use, the copyright and NFC issues are moot.
OTOH, I agree with postdlf that a pic of the whole statue is less interesting and relevant than a close-up of the plaque with SK's name on it would be to the article. Everybody knows what an Oscar statue looks like, after all. Shirtwaist chat 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please talk to a copyright lawyer about this. You clearly don't understand the difference between copyright versus image reproduction and where the boundaries cross and where the exceptions exist. A photograph of a copyrighted image does not transfer its copyright to the photograph. The photograph in question is my copyright and no-one can add themselves to it or take away my copyright from it.
The photograph is fair use as it documents an item that was on display in a public place. No-one has to seek permission from the objects/people photographed for reproduction. Obviously, otherwise the President's Inauguration ceremony could not be transmitted, TV launch of the shuttle would be banned, all photos taken of a high street would have to be censored, etc. The law provides for this. The wording of the AMPAS clearly shows their determination not to allow reproductions of the statue itself, or for anyone to profit from it's image, pass themselves off as Oscar winners, etc. It has no provision for stopping 3rd parties from documenting it progress through every day life. In any case AMPAS would have no jurisdiction over 3rd parties and would do itself more harm trying to control 3rd party images of its statue. The same goes for any company. CocaCola does not sue people for taking photos of rusting coke cans on a beach, although it wishes it could. Both the statue and the subject of the statue are discussed on the SK page at the same time, so its inclusion is under the 'fair use law'.
My photograph is not a derivative work of a copyrighted work. Photographs cannot be derivative. Only a work created from scratch can be derivative. And of course it comes under the free license. The Oscar shows (only just) Stanley Kubrick's name when viewed at full resolution. So it is relevant and unique to other images of the Oscar. In addition it is the first time it has ever been displayed and therefore photographed in public, with a prop from the very film that it was awarded to. That juxtaposition, within the exhibition dedicated to him, makes it very relevant to the SK page. A picture of only the base's engraving does not prove it is a/the Oscar in question, which is why no close-up image was uploaded by myself.
'Everybody' does not know what an Oscar looks like, so to speak. Every year millions of people see an image of one for the first time. More so with Kubrick's Oscar pertaining to those specifically interested in Stanley Kubrick and seeking out information about him and his work. Still, I think this should be run past a copyright lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just looked at the Commons:Derivative_works page you linked to, Postdlf. Looks like the photograph does qualify for removal. Didn't realise how different your 'derivative' is to mine. Thanks for the heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to include an paragraph about the SK exhibition. Can I send you all the pics from the Ghent exhibition and you can tell me which will pass the Commons:Derivative_works test? If so, could you leave your email here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the tilde heads up. I've uploaded to Panoramio, http://www.panoramio.com/user/468476 or http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54386447 ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: delete as a violation of WP:NFCC#8. There is nothing in this image which can not be conveyed similarly in the text of the article (since it's a scan of text), and seeing the layout of the list does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Additionally, "its omission [is not] detrimental to that understanding." ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural relisting of discussion from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 23#File:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.jpg to obtain clearer consensus. I am Neutral. FASTILY (TALK) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The layout of the list as it's published on the NYTimes is not relevant (and as such, is not discussed in the article). This non-free image is an unnecessary decoration to the article. (although, there's a chance it's ineligible for copyright, I don't know). Damiens.rf 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned vanity photo, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decorative generic movie screenshot. damiens.rf 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free movie shot showing a famous actress playing an award wining character. The image is used decoratively in the article about the actress (the movie and the character are barely mentioned, the character look is never mentioned other than its age) and in another article where its just as non-necessary. damiens.rf 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an anchor. It is proposed that the entire contents of Category:Raster Chemical Structures - currently 639 images are deleted. These images have been singled out as poor quality, unused, chemical structures (all PNG and SVG images are in a separate category) A full discussion is being held at Category_talk:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures#Category:Raster_Chemical_Structures_-_Delete_now.3F. It was suggested to post a notice here so that there was full transparency. It is requested that any comments be also posted at Category_talk:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures#Category:Raster_Chemical_Structures_-_Delete_now.3F. It is anticipated that the admins posting on that page will take care of the actual deletion. All uploaders were notified. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#5 and WP:NFC#8. Image is just a photograph of a sign full of text and does not have much encyclopedic value. The image is not necessary to complement the context of the article and can easily be mentioned in prose as "a sign was displayed that said..." or something similar. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
an orphaned jpeg image map §§§§ Alquerytalk 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
an almost-duplicate of above image §§§§ Alquerytalk 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]