Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 October 30

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< October 29	October 31 >

October 30

Image:Gary Busey.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by PhilVincent (notify | contribs). Fails WP:FUC #1 & #10; we already have a freely-licensed photo of Busey at Image:Gary Busey (1976).jpg. —Chowbok 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DyingBull.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Kowloonese (notify | contribs). OR, Derivative of copyrighted image Nv8200p talk 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a photograph of a painting a copyright violation? I took that photo myself in New York City, i.e. I own the copyright of the photo, though not the painting's. Do you mean that all photos of artwork must be removed from wikipedia? It does not make any sense. Kowloonese 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. This is an absurd nomination and the image should be kept. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basicaly a copy of a copyrighted work of art (Picasso has only been dead for 33 years), see Commons:Derivative works. If no fair use claim is made (wich would require it to be actualy used in an article somewhere) it shold be deleted. --Sherool (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of disagree with how you define the word "copy". I guess it makes a big difference in how you interprete the rules. To me, a copy is a reproduction of the same piece of art. For example, if I hang a poster, print, Giclee or an oil reproduction of this painting that is made to the same size, same resolution, same details, and same liking of the original, then it is definitely a copy of the work. A photo at a reduced resolution is just an image of the art, not a copy of the art. I guess a photo of a photo should be consider a copy because they are in the same medium, not not otherwise. How about a photo of a sculpture? Do you call it a copy or an image of the art? How about a photo of a person, do you call it a copy (clone) of the person or just an image? I'm curious how you use the word "copy" in different scenarios. Kowloonese 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of a sclupture is generally considered a derivative (copy) of the sculpture. A photo of a person is not a copy as real people cannot be copyrighted since they are not considered by law creative works of another human (yet). -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (a US judgment) stated that exact photographs of two-dimensional works of art are automatically in the public domain *if* the artwork is in the public domain. Photographs of three-dimensional works of art are not because the photographer exerts creativity in choosing the lighting, angle, background, etc. --Charlene 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are several listing pages of Picasso's artworks. These few listing pages can bring these images in as for fair use. The problem is that the lists use the foreign titles of the artworks. It is hard to tie the translated name of the image to the list. It is a chicken and egg problem. If no article uses this image, it needs to be deleted. But once it is deleted, no one would be able to move it to the right place anymore. We need some art enthusaists to save this image to the appropriate article. Kowloonese 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In order for this to be kept, there needs to be some discussion of the artwork itself. Right now, it's just decorating a list of Picasso works, which is in violation of WP:FUC #8. howch e ng {chat}

Is there a better way to do this? Wikipedia is a collaboration, which means not every contributor has all the pieces at the same time. Some of the resources are opportunistic. e.g. I took a photo of this Picasso while visiting New York City. I don't visit New York often, so I would not take another picture of it again any time soon. Many tourists take picture of this painting too, but they don't contribute to wikipedia. You see that it is pure chance that makes all the pieces fit together. Chances may not happen often. When it is deleted, it is gone. It's so permanent! This picture could be put in good use under the fair use license only if an article exist about this painting. What a waste that it must be deleted just because no one has written about it yet. How can you be sure that no one will ever write about it in the future? It's a chicken and egg problem. Why do you have to destroy the chicken when you cannot find the egg? IMO, it is a waste of the contributor's effort to delete otherwise fair use images. Wikipedia could have archived these images into an unpublished pool. There will be no copyright violation if they are not publicly displayed. These images can be maintained by administrators and revived when the fair use conditions surface. Kowloonese 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dye terminator Seq kit.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Abizar (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dyck.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Brentles (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dxm-struct.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DrBob (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dwindlingroad.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Twiffy (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pog3.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Barnticket (notify | contribs). UE, AB. Apparently a joke image created using Photoshop and not an actual pog (see the description). The guy in the picture is wearing a Naruto headband which doesn't jive with the 1995 copyright date (I'm skeptical of the NoRightsReserved license tag too). -- DopefishJustin 06:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neoedge logo.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Self (notify | contribs). OB Image:Nen-logo.png, better crop and better format. -- Tom Edwards 09:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Impeach06.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Isthisthefalselife (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ernie & judi.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ktambara (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acidburn.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Shicety (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ernie close up.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ktambara (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ernie sliding door.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ktambara (notify | contribs). OR, AB, UE. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG 0337.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by CBat28 (notify | contribs). Orphanded, not ensyclopedic- Sherool (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NatBaileyAbove.PNG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gateman1997 (notify | contribs). CV, states US Gov PD, yet a Google copyright watermark is clearly visible -- ccwaters 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google has obtained all of their images from USGS satilittes. Keep. Gateman1997 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, some of them maybe, but not nearly all. Much of the close up material is for example not satelite images at all, but rater areal-photographs. Then there are the various border, street and information overlays and so on. See http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/legalnotices_maps.html for huge list of legal notices and stuff that apply to the varios data incorporated into the Google maps service. If you are looking for public domain NASA sattelite maps use NASA World Wind instead (note that some 3. party plugins and datasets are copyrighted there too[1]). --Sherool (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KSH-12.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by KansasCity (notify | contribs). Redundant to Image:K-12.svg, which is in vector format opposed to this JPEG.- —Scott5114 ↗ 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helsinkimetro.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Vkem (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Helsinki-metro-map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nintendude.PNG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Nintendude (notify | contribs). Signature of a banned user, resembles the Nintendo logo. Peter O. (Talk) 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a good parody logo for Nintendo. Just because it was uploaded by a now-banned user dosen't mean it should be deleted. --Bad Camaro 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some logos should stay for the pleasure for being looked at. --Clarenceville Trojan 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - UE, and could cause legal problems. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time signature example.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Time signature example.svg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heart-section.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Gray498.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heart labelled.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Wapcaplet (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Heart labelled large.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ac.saddamcaptured2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Hoshie (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Saddamcapture.jpg on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acetaminophen.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Raeky (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Paracetamol-skeletal.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cdnamerica.GIF (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Intuitionz (notify | contribs). orphaned, unencyclopedic Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nov 2005.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Cavell (notify | contribs). orphan, unencyclopedic, lower quality Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Janefonda.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Fallout boy (notify | contribs). Free images availiable. -- Arniep 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fondaschyman.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Entheta (notify | contribs). Free images availiable, unnecessary. -- Arniep 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mylifesofar.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Andrea Parton (notify | contribs). Free images availiable of Jan Fonda, unnecessary use of copyrighted image. -- Arniep 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John2.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Thira7 (notify | contribs). OR, UE. possibly a copyvio too depending on the status of the photograph Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metroid2002design.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Msikma (notify | contribs). Pure decorative fair use image that's completely unnecessary to illustarte the article. Already linked to in the article; no need to show an image of it. Hbdragon88 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The entire paragraph that it's used in gives a general account of the actions that lead up to that screenshot, and then in detail describes exactly how important it is. It's not "simply illustrative". It actually enhances the article. All in all, I think that this fair use image is sufficiently helpful to the article and that it should stay. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 07:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it shows is the front page of the site. There's nothing important - no news item or anything - that is shown there. Even if there was, it would be far better to use an external link - a copy from archive.org or he site itself. You could replace the image with a link and it would still have the same effect. According to WP:FU, criteria 3 and 8 are not fulfilled here. Hbdragon88 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3 is a recommendation to make the image "more suitable for fair use purposes" and does not need to be followed so strictly, especially since this site layout itself contains fair use elements and after that just text and nothing more. Criteria 8 suggests that the image should not be decorative, but actually illustrate a point. This image gives a face to the paragraph by visually representing the Internet community that the paragraph is about. It succeeds explanation that suggests it's a very important speedrun community. I don't see how this does not fulfill criteria 8. Wikipedia isn't just an online encyclopedia, its purpose is to simply be a free encyclopedia that, for example, might also be printed or installed on an off-line database. It's more than useful to have an image of this community available then, because of how important this community is to the subject matter. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if it was free. This is a copyrighted image used under fair use. Per Jimbo Wales, fair use should be as limited as possible. I can definitely see the need to illustrate a scene from a video game, which usually cannot be free, but this is just eye candy. The visitor can click on the link and see the website in all of its glory. The other suggestion of FU is: would the effect be the same if the image wsa removed? I don't get anything more from the image; it's an image of a splash page. Thus, I think that it should be deleted. Hbdragon88 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my arguments. I just argued that the criteria you mentioned are fulfilled, and you blatantly ignored it. So, like I already said: this image fully and completely fulfills fair use criteria, in that it is not just decorative. You just said a while back that "visitors can just click the link". I responded to this by saying "but what if the visitors aren't online? What if they're using a print version?" And your response to that was "... but they can click the link". Do you have anything at all to say in response to my arguments? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia 1.0 does come to frutition, it won't have any fair use images at all - it would be a commercial production, which means that they would have to get permission beforehand to use the image. Well, at least in Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 the DVD release will have to be stripped of all fair use images. Therefore, this application of fair use is based on the online version...which visitors can easily access. ContiE supports the removal as well [2] Hbdragon88 09:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All of this content is already being used for commercial purposes. Haven't you ever heard of Answers.com? Their stripping of all fair use images has nothing to do with copyright law, which does state that fair use should mostly be restricted to non-commercial use, but doesn't outrule commercial usage. And you still did not respond to my arguments. I guess that means you AGREE with me on the issue of it being not just decorative? I guess you AGREE that it fully complies with WP:FU? Again, if you don't respond to my arguments, I presume that you cannot respond to them because you have no way of doing so! —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this helps to illustrate the subject. A screenshot of the front page of that website does not help the article at all. Delete this one, but I think a more illustrative screenshot of the website could be used in place of it. --- RockMFR 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it can simply be updated. It doesn't have to go through deletion first. I still don't see how it isn't typical for websites to have a screenshot of their main page. Most big articles about websites do, such as Digg or Slashdot, or MSN... —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The only place where this would be valid would be an article about the web site itself. howch e ng {chat} 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loccode212.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Jmurden (notify | contribs). OR image of a school. PD-USGov claimed but given that the source is a VA govt site is likely a false claim. Wouldn't be usable under Fair Use. Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) blade.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Casper Gutman (notify | contribs). Orphan; has been replaced everywhere and obsoleted by Image:Jesus College Oxford Rowing Blade.svg from Commons -- Casper Gutman 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]