Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

File:Casuallean.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image of some sort. Used in a now deleted PROD. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:19, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Day of Awakening.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to be fan art. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Uploader has noted at the file talk page that he does not object to the image being deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - For those interested in reading the history of the image in the Talk page, I have no objection if other Editors think it should be kept for some future use either. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (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.

File:IParty with Victorious release poster.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this per NFCC#8 (and NFCC#1 to a lesser extent) but it keeps getting put back in. This is a poster for an episode of a television program. Free images of both actresses are available on Commons, the date and the names are in the main infobox. The only thing that is not freely available that is in this image is the purple background. I'm sorry, I know people like pretty images, but this does not add to the reader's understanding, and does not depict anything that the free pictures and words cannot describe. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, the image is fairly simple. However, it is a promotional image used to uniquely identify the subject of the article, which is not the actresses pictured or the date or the text. Similar images abound: The Beatles (album) is a white box with the words "The BEATLES" in gray. The Black Album (Prince album) features a completely featureless black box. Nearly every biography/autobiography is merely a photo of the subject person and some words (from Mein Kampf to The Autobiography of Malcolm X and The Reagan Diaries and plenty with living subjects as well). How many corporate logos are merely the name of the company in a particular font and/or color (e.g., Product Red). While I understand that "other stuff exists", this seems like a pretty pointless, particularly pedantic parsing of NFCC. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing books and album covers to an episode of a television show. A single fair use image of a book or album cover is generally acceptable, as would be the title card for a television series, however for individual episodes the standards are raised, the ability to use a non-free image isn't a given (and using a non-free image is never a right). At issue is what the poster is informing the reader of. A screenshot from the episode of a particularly important scene (discussed in the article) has much higher EV than this poster does. As I've said, this poster adds nothing to the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:NoticeCB.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. This image is a badly photoshopped warning sign about eating fish from a rivier. The article text doesn't mention it and the licensing is problematic as this photo is a derivative work of the copyrightable sign ... but even if licensing were not an issue, it's unencyclopedic. B (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Village2006colorlogo.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, purports to be user-authored and a logo for Grafton, Wisconsin. So it's either non-free or unencyclopedic. And if this logo is authentic and we want to use it, we should find a version without the bad jpeg artifacts this one has. B (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been to Grafton and I've never seen this image at all on any of the town's signage. Nate • (chatter) 05:08, 19 July 2011 (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.

File:Hmfurfural.PNG

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, redundant to File:Hydroxymethylfurfural.png, which is much higher quality B (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, quality is too low. --Leyo 20:00, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Philippe derome harmony 1987.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted modern painting. It is currently used only decoratively in African American. The article text does not mention this painting at all. There is a fair use rationale for use in the article Philippe Derome, but as far as I can tell, it was never actually used there. B (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Vot derome.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted painting by Philippe Derome used only decoratively in two articles - Selma to Montgomery marches and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968). The text of neither article mentions the painting. B (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Philippe derome cherry tart vanitas.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted modern painting used in Vanitas only to illustrate an example of the genre. Commons:Category:Vanitas has 157 free examples of Vanitas to choose from and the article text does not mention this image. B (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Riot 1963 philippe derome.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted painting used decoratively in Mass racial violence in the United States. The text does not comment on it and it occurs in a list section of the article. B (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Skieur philippe derome.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free modern painting used decoratively in Ski. The only remote connection to this painting in the text of the article is the unsourced sentence, "As the water and mechanical sports, ski also was a subject of inspiration for the artists of the twentieth century." Words fail me. B (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Busaras Dublin.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo. Was replaced with a better one File:Busaras.jpg Wiki01916 (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:PBP.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:RE019 R4456 choc.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, image is web-resolution, so license is dubious. These four uploads constitute the uploader's only contributions. B (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:RE01.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, image is web-resolution, so license is dubious. These four uploads constitute the uploader's only contributions. B (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:RE18.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, image is web-resolution, so license is dubious. These four uploads constitute the uploader's only contributions. B (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:RE04.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, image is web-resolution, so license is dubious. These four uploads constitute the uploader's only contributions. B (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:The Millenium Tower in Charlotte Quay.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Too small to be useful. (cue "That's what she said") B (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:WKRPseasonone.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to character section and rewrite caption It can be used to illustrate the characters not currently illustrated. (Herb and Venus). And add a FUR for the usage of illustrating the characters. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2011 (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.

File:Flag of the Province of Barahona.JPG and 34 others

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 discussion was: Deleted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a large nomination. User:MRDU08 (both as themself and as various socks) uploaded a large number of flag images a while back before being blocked. The problem with these images is that... well... most of them aren't real, making them original research and unencyclopedic. All of ones nominated here are orphaned.
Details about this user, a prolific copyvio-uploader, and the flag uploads can be found at this AN/I discussion. Some of these images even have different versions in the history as the user was changing what the flag looks like. Talk:List of Dominican Republic flags, the talk page of the article where most or all of these were used, is littered with comments about them not being real.
These images are completely unencyclopedic and unused. They should be nuked from orbit, never to be seen again.
(Note that some of the uploader's flags are still in use. I'll nominate them if needed at a later date. Note also that I did not study each of these flags to determine whether or not they are real; I will do so with the in-use flags when I get around to looking at them. Due to the number of fake flags and the like, it seems safe to assume that many are made-up and the others are unused anyway and can be reuploaded if really needed). –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all — we should have done this two years ago... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 July 2011 (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.

File:CaliShire2.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a picture. Original copyright applies. damiens.rf 18:50, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Sally-Cruikshank-1970s.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 discussion was: speedy close, free license obtained, problem solved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a living person, showing an artist at her working desk in a studio. Standard replaceability criteria apply. Was uploaded with the rationale that it is the only available photograph showing her at the time she created some important works. However, her appearance at that time in her life has obviously nothing to do with that. Standard exception for photographs of living people ("retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance") evidently doesn't apply, as her work as an artist didn't depend on her looks in any way. Auto-speedy-tagging during upload was inexplicably overridden with a "keep" by another administrator, so I have to bring it here. This is an open-and-shut NFCC#1 case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply say the fact that another admin in March interpreted NFCC differently than Future Perfect at Sunrise is notable, unless we are saying that Future Perfect at Sunrise is completely infallible and has veto over over other admins. Copyright law, which is what is involved here, is not simple, and for any layman who is not a copyright lawyer to make absolute pronouncements is akin to a non-doctor making an absolute diagnosis of a medical condition as complex as copyright law is. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has next to nothing to do with copyright law. The replaceability/living-people rule is a matter of Wikipedia-internal principles, dictated by Foundation rules. This rule is notoriously difficult to accept to some editors, but it is in fact quite simple, and well understood by virtually everybody who regularly deals with image issues. I don't know what Diannaa was thinking when (s)he untagged that file; the simple fact is that this is a textbook case of an NFCC#1 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At that point a question: Aside from taking a picture by surprise (BPL issue) is there a likelyhood that the subject of the article participates, or has participated, in events where free to use pictures can be or were taken? ie Doe she do the convention circuit or has she steadfastly stated that she considers herself a private person and will not participate or provide time for free to use photos to be taken? - J Greb (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for NFCC#1 exceptions is high. Per the Foundation rules, we must assume replaceability for "almost all notable living individuals". That includes private individuals who are retired or work out of the public spotlight, and who don't regularly appear at public events. The exceptions are of a different order, e.g. where a person is notoriously reclusive (i.e. it is a well-sourced fact that the person has persistently refused to be photographed). There is no reason to expect Ms Cruikshank would ever have been under so much pressure from public interest that for her to state such a refusal, or for reliable sources to report such a refusal from her, would ever have become an issue. We cannot simply assume such notorious recluse status based on the mere absence of known public appearances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, WP:NFC#UUI doesn't say anything about how reclusive or how generally unavailable a person has to be. Anything beyond the following wording is one admin's opinion/interpretation, and we've seen that another admin has a different opinion/interpretation: "Unacceptable use" includes "Pictures of people still alive ... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

The phrase "almost always" is open to interpretation, and most law is based on the "reasonable man" standard. Unless a private citizen appears with notice at public events, then the alternative appears to be: finding their private address and stalking them like a paparazzi, invading their privacy. I'm not sure that's Wikipedia policy.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a much, much easier alternative. Write her a friendly e-mail or a message via her blog or facebook contact, asking her if she would be so kind and donate a photo of herself under a free license. Chances are she'll be flattered and glad to oblige. Or, if she prefers not to give us a photo, then perhaps we should do the decent thing and go without one and leave her alone. Have you tried asking her? In fact, you should never even begin thinking about claiming a fair use image unless you have exhausted that avenue first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, this steps out an touches an additional policy as I pointed out - WP:MUG under BLP. Bluntly if the only way we are able to get a free use picture is by taking it when the person is unaware or unwilling we cannot get a free use image. Period. Hence the question I asked - Does she or has she done the convention circuit? It is expected that non-professional pictures are taken there. Is she on record as not wanting or allowing her photo to be taken as she is a private person? If not, has she been approached about providing a free to use image?

And please remember, MUG (policy) is why NFC#UUI (guideline) includes the hedge "almost always". MUG is the major exception but it has to be grounded in the subjects actions/stance, not an unwillingness to ask on our part. - J Greb (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were the case that she seriously doesn't want photographs, then the decent thing for us to do would be not to go digging for one, be it free or non-free; there is no overwhelming need for us to have one in any case (given the fact that she apparently never was a figure in the public spotlight, and the notability of her work has nothing to do with her appearance). But the question is academic. There is absolutely no need to assume that such a situation obtains. I just pointed out one way of obtaining a legitimate image in an uncontroversial way. Another would be to wait until somebody happens to meet her in the street, walk over to her and say: hey, aren't you the famous artist, I'm so happy to meet you, could I take a photo with you? – In any case, I don't agree MUG is the major exception to NFCC#1. If MUG applies, then the logical consequence is to use no image at all, not to use a non-free image. The exceptions described in NFC are of a different kind, and they most definitely do not cover routine cases of people who simply lead a normal private life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

Declining to be photographed by the general public or to provide free to use pictures is different than not wanting photos or images used. Granted, approaching her about the issue would provide clarity.
On a certain level I agree that for people notable for works that do not involve appearances - writers, painters, directors, mathematicians, publishers, etc - an image in the infobox is questionable, free or non-free. Questionable but not flat out unneeded since face recognition is engaged in to some degree and there is an encyclopedic precedent for including such images.
On MUG and NFC#1 we are a degree apart. NFC#1 hinges on being able to get a free image, MUG, as currently written, limits the degree to which a free image of a living person can be obtained. If the only way to get a free image falls under MUG, and an image is deemed warranted, non-free stands.
Looking over this thread there is a case to be made that MUG needs to be re-visited and/or clarified as to what steps need be shown that the person is unwilling or unable to allow for free use images to exist. But that needs to be dealt with elsewhere, not here.

- J Greb (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it turns out she has a blog [1] and a facebook profile [2] (with picture). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uncropped version of this photo came from that very blog. In fact, the source [3] was always properly given on the image page.

Facebook and blog photos are considered public images and are used by many thousands of newspapers and magazines under fair-use guidelines. I'm not sure it's possible to say that every one of these many thousands of periodicals, a great many with staff or consulting intellectual-property attorneys, is incorrect in its reading of copyright law and that a single copyright layman is correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How often do you have to be told that I'm not arguing copyright; I'm arguing Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? It doesn't matter whether US law would allow us to take these images under fair use. What matters is our internal, self-imposed rule that we won't resort to fair use, in cases of living individuals of whom fully free images can in principle still be created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content criteria says it is "an English Wikipedia content guideline," rather than a policy. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I would offer this post on my talk page as suggestive that — together with the fact that another admin had previously vetted use of this image — this may be one of those "common sense" moments.

Let me give another example: This whole issue started when I was asked by one party to informally mediate a dispute at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise between Future Perfect at Sunrise and another editor over whether images could be added to an article about an animated movie. FPaS said no images, the other editor wanted multiple, so in simple good faith I suggested one as a compromise. Assuming FUR would apply — I would never suggest copyright infringement — I reasoned to them that we already had one promotional image (the poster, which does not contain an actual scene from the movie), and that a second promotional image (a promotional still) would provide additional pertinent visual information (an actual scene from the movie). After being subjected to some extremely nasty and uncalled-for language by FPaS, I went and read about non-free content criteria for poster images — and from my understanding, we can only use a poster image if we're doing critical commentary about the poster itself. So, following FPaS' strict reading of NFC, that poster image shouldn't even be there. But FPaS and other editors are following common sense and including it as pertinent, if limited, visual information about the movie.

I do agree with FPaS that it's never a bad idea to e-mail a subject and get an OK to run his or her image. But I also agree with User:J Greb that a person not wanting to go out in public and be photographed doesn't have any intrinsic connection with whether they mind their picture being used (and in this particular case, since it comes from her own blog, we can infer she has no issue with this picture per se).

The other thing I need to say: FPaS only objected to this already-vetted image after he felt my good-faith suggestion on his talk page amounted to "useless" (his word) disagreement with him. He then he combed my contributions for "skeletons" (his word) — similar to Richard Nixon having journalists audited if he felt they disagreed with him. He then put up three of my image contributions for deletion. The timing of that seems retaliatory — especially here, where another admin felt the use of this image was proper. His intense interest in, and time devoted to, this already-vetted image feels remarkably out of proportion, like personal hounding to "teach me a lesson" about disagreeing with him on his talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruikshank issue moot; she gives permission

I have sent the following e-mail from her to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org, cc'ing Ms. Cruikshank]

Sally Cruikshank [e-mail address redacted here; included in e-mail to permissions-commons]
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:06:27 -0600
To: [Tenebrae civilian name redacted here; included in e-mail to permissions-commons]
Subject: wikipedia!

I've wanted to know who you were for a while because I wanted to THANK YOU for the exquisite entry. And of course you can use that picture or any other one. However, I'm not sure how to correct it with Creative Commons. Is it enough to say I grant permission for its use or do I need to file this permission elsewhere? Again, I feel incredibly fortunate for your entry and thank you very much. Let me know what I should do further. I remember once trying to edit something on wikipedia and it was so complicated I gave up. Best Wishes, Sally

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this effort and ensuring the best result for the project in this way; it's appreciated. I trust the people at OTRS can resolve any remaining quibbles about the licensing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 17 July 2011 (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.

File:Pictoral Map of Greater Sydney.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, wrong format, I'm not quite sure where in Sydney this is supposed to be B (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering what it's supposed to show: the same region, Greater Sydney, as File:Sydney Areas Map.svg. Not sure and don't much care whether it should be deleted. —innotata 17:57, 18 July 2011 (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.

File:Murksnpeeksrb4.png

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too small to be useful B (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Joelbeckself.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-portrait of an artist being used under a claim of fair use. The artwork is not mentioned at all in the text of the article. Fails NFCC#8 B (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a paragraph about the self portrait to the body copy. Pepso2 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just making up a sentence describing the picture and throwing it into the article does NOT suffice. As with all articles, but especially biographies of living persons, you need to cite reliable sources for your claims. A reliable source would also help to demonstrate that this work of art is critical to the reader's understanding of the topic and not merely a decorative picture to look at. --B (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added. Joel Beck is not a living person. He died in 1999. Pepso2 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Cyprus map of occupied villages and towns copy.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that this file was copied from the link given in the summary - and even the name says "copy". This is not an image ineligible for copyright, since only the information in it is common property, but it contains original authorship (somebody has created this map using a computer program, and not everyone can do that.) Additionally, it is inaccurate, since it does not contain every village in Northern Cyprus, for instance, it does not contain Akıncılar. Seksen (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Carlos3Constant.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly scanned copy; superseded by File:Carlos3-Const.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:San Juan.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 discussion was: reverted to originally uploaded file and later versions deleted. (Closed early since this could, in a perfect world, have been achieved by semi-speedy deletion if the tags allowed the nomination to be expressed). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per above flag nominations. Additionally, the licensing is almost certainly incorrect as it applied to a previous image which this was uploaded over. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:Image-COA Of Matías Ramón Mella.jpg and File:COAProvincia de Colon, Rep. Dominicana.PNG

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 discussion was: Deleted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Appears to be a made up coat of arms from the same user who made the phony flags nominated above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (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.

File:SmallFormFactor.gif

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR per WP:NFCC#8 (image is non-free based on source). I don't think we need to see the product in the article about the company. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless alleged permission / free release can be substantiated through OTRS; as a non-free file it's obviously replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 16 July 2011 (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.

File:De-Tomaso-logo.png

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:De-Tomaso-logo-1.PNG. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:56, 14 July 2011 (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.