Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17

File:91expresslanes.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A low quality orphaned map of some highway §§§§ Alquerytalk 01:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons it's about California State Route 91. Quality seems OK, it's readable. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn If you think it's needed, it can be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alquery (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 June 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:Vietnam Gallantry Cross ribbon.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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned redundant file. It is of significantly inferior quality to its suggested replacement (File:Vietnam gallantry cross-w-palm-3d.svg), and is not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat blurry compared to replacement image. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:20, 23 June 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:Adipiplon (old).svg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:Adipiplon.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ SVG bug → delete --Leyo 07:37, 17 June 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 empire strikes back newsweek.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: Withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural relisting of discussion from Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_27#File:The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg to obtain clearer consensus. I am Neutral. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the iconic images of the press coverage of the Falklands War, included as a subject for commentary of the press coverage of the Falklands War. The imagery of the cover is important for its depiction of the British response to the invasion by the sending of a task force, whilst the title makes a humorous reference to the Star Wars film the Empire Strikes Back. The imagery is intrinsically linked with the headline and so a textual description does not suffice. There is a valid FUR for its use and per NFCC#1 there is provision for the use of images of this nature. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn As original nominator I agree this is kept and FfD closed. --damiens.rf 19:48, 17 June 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:Didrikson.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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete copyright violation from Getty Images http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3243536 . It was previously nominated some years ago but incompetence prevailed. damiens.rf 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she's been dead for 55 years. As such no new free image of this person can be created. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per the arguments of the previous deletion discussion , which were not incompetent at all. Fair use is not a copyright violation in the sense being used here, unless it is being claimed that all fair use images are copyright violations. There is no possibility of obtaining a free image as the subject is deceased, which is precisely why it is being used on the basis of "fair use" of a historic photo. The image is doubly historic because it was taken shortly after setting a world record in the javelin competition at the Olympics. The resolution is low, and the image has been widely published elsewhere. The image copyright is not owned by Getty, who frequently claim "rights" over images they do not own, but instead act as agents. Amongst the many places this image appears is on the cover and inside Babe Didrikson Zaharias: the making of a champion published in 1999. Observe the image credits page. Nowhere is Getty listed. Note that this photo also appears at CNN credited to Associated Press, and at Corbis who claim copyright to Bettmann/CORBIS here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? It's not the same picture in none of the links you provided. And you're completely confused about Fair use and WP:NFCC: Irreplaceability is important for NFCC, but it actually worsens our fair use case, as it turns the photo more valuable for the copyright holder. --damiens.rf 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they are slightly different! I believe this one at Life Magazine is the same and independently credits it to Getty. I've struck my keep. So let me get this straight. It's potentially OK to use a low resolution photo of a deceased person to illustrate their article under WP:NFCC, but not if its owned by a press agency? Voceditenore (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content should fulfill all of 10 criteria in WP:NFCC. A picture of someone used to illustrate his bio is accepted to pass item #8, because it's considered significant to show what the person looks like. If the person is deceased, we consider that it's not reasonably possible to create a free image of this person, so, the image also pass item #1. But images from photo agencies, when used for the exact same purposed they were taken to, does not pass item #2, as our free use is one market opportunity less for Getty. --damiens.rf 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Could I make a suggestion? That should be explictly added to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I have since found the bit about no press agencies at Wikipedia:Non-free content, but many editors, especially new ones but also "old" ones like me, look at WP:NFCC and wrongly assume that 2. is satisfied simply by uploading a low resolution image. Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being low-resolution makes the image pass item #3. NFCC is intended to be concise, while WP:NFC is to be educational. Yes, item #4 of WP:NFC#UUI deals directly with this case. --damiens.rf 18:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean that any image passing NFCC #1 automatically fails NFCC #2? 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's usually accepted that non-free images publicity image, or those coming from press-releases, official websites, and the like are acceptable for illustrating dead guys, since the original intent of the image was to be distributed and reused free of charge. --damiens.rf 23:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. But I'm kind of curious about how this might play out. Hypothetically, as long as the press release folks retain the rights to the photo, they could decide willy-nilly that they want to try and charge money for it. Would their change of heart require us to take down the photo? Or, as a variation, suppose we've been using photos of a person off their official website. Then they die and Getty acquires the rights to all the photos from the estate. Would we be compelled to remove the photos from Wikipedia? 68.32.94.161 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It was previously nominated some years ago but incompetence prevailed."

Incompetence? Maybe good sense. Keep it per above. MachoCarioca (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's clearly a Getty image. Were they to send a takedown order, we would undoubtedly be forced to comply. If Wikipedia wants to use this image, we can pay royalties for it - there's no fair use defense. As a side note, I searched for this person at the Library of Congress's website and, while there are no provably public domain images there, there is one - http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002705664/ - that is not a Getty/AP/etc photo. It might very well be public domain, but someone would have to physically go to the Library of Congress and look at it to see. --B (talk) 22:37, 23 June 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:1.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, essentially a fluff image. Does not illustrate anything substantive at Manav Rachna College Of Engineering, the article where it is in. The article is also already well endowed with images. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as a bad name. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 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.