Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Microsoft Surface with Touch Cover.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: keep for now. However, all bets are off once it hits a retail store. DC folks, there are Microsoft stores at Tysons Corner and at Pentagon City (hint, hint). SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Surface was announced 12 weeks ago and there are review units of this everywhere. Sure its hard to get your hands on one, its also hard to get photos of Delta Force, and ninjas. That doesn't mean we need fair-use photos for them. Besides, we're less than 7 weeks from launch and there'll be display models all over the place. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fur is not complete ("Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a.") - why "n.a."? Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A rational has now been added.--Josh (Mephiles602) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems very much like rule enforcement for the sake of rule enforcement. Can you cite evidence that there are review units? Can you show that these reviewers have permission to take photos of their review units? Microsoft have not even officially started their advertising campaign for these device. The only time we have received official information about them was during the press conference a couple of months ago. No new information -- including images -- has been obtained since them. When the Surface is on displayed to the public, we can have a free image and the current image can be marked for speedy deletion. Until the product is on display to the public, all images of it are non-free. Simple. As. That. --Josh (Mephiles602) 08:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MSFT is restricting what can be done with the review units but nonetheless there are demos on YouTube. Robert Scoble uses a PD licence. Maybe he has seen and photographed a unit? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can ask him to publish a free photo, then that would be great. However, I don't think that the possibility that he could give us a free image provides enough rationale to delete the current image. If he will not upload one, then we will be back to square one. If you knew for a fact and could cite evidence that we could obtain a free image of Surface when you put up the deletion template, this would have provided enough reason to delete the current image. Also, it was mentioned in the video that the devices shown were still pre-production units. The device was turned off, anyway, and it would be ideal if we could have a photo with it turned on. There's no need to rush into deleting the current image. We have less than a month until we will be able to obtain a free image anyway. :-) --Josh (Mephiles602) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep temporarily - Someone will surely upload a correct (free) version of the image. For now, let it be, and later it can get deleted. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (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:BoNM Rhodesia3.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikipedia award ( rather low quality image) Bulwersator (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons someone can use it, and not just on en.wiki. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move, but certainly not delete. Besides, nominator himself admits that image is completely Public domain: Image's entry on non-free image page Sf46 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PD status is not disputed in this deletion request Bulwersator (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons per IP above. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It serves no purpose and is unlikely to be used by anyone else. Plus, it is indeed a low-quality image (Sorry!). --Josh (Mephiles602) 21:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move. I see no reason to delete. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image has been moved to Commons as File:BoNM Rhodesia.png, therefore this duplicate is no longer needed. Sf46 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; made obsolete by the .png image that Sf46 links. Not the same file format, so this isn't eligible for F8 speedy. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2012 (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 Catherine Wheel.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--substantially similar to original cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 8 September 2012 (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:Yaquisinsignia.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yaquisinsignia.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2012 (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:Stamp UN 1951 1c.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2012 (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:Sofa Song.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 as F8 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2012 (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:Edvard Eriksen.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eriksen_Edvard.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2012 (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:Afaka 1920.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Afaka 1920.png but this request could not be completed because see template" - on the template: "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Netherlands." - why? This is PD-text or PD-old, original author of this script is certainly dead over 100 years ago. Bulwersator (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it's a script, and scripts are always PD. You can't copyright the alphabet! But best to retain local copies of stuff on Commons unless it's overtly PD, because sooner or later they'll change their licensing rules or come up with some other reason to delete it, and we're left to undo the damage. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2012 (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:Bulgarian National Television 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:БНТ.png Bulwersator (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2012 (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:Effie Deans.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, lower quality than http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Effie_Deans,_1877.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2012 (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:EOE TS 1887.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:EOE TS 1887.jpg but this request could not be completed because source information is needed." - source is the same as on enwiki. Either it should be deleted as F8 or as missing source. Bulwersator (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2012 (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:Burtonstairs.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be replaced by better http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frederic_William_Burton_-_Enlarge_Image_Frederic_William_Burton_Irish,_1816-1900_Hellelil_and_Hildebrand,_the_Meeting_on_the_Turret_Stairs_-_1864.jpg

Unused, replaced in articles Bulwersator (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it looks better than the other the nom suggests, and may prove useful in that manner. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (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:Bhc3602.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original image is laterally inverted: http://web.archive.org/web/20070325052627/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/displayRepro.cfm?ReproID=BHC3602&picture=1#content orphaned (i replaced this file in articles by correct one - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Cleveley_the_Elder,_The_Royal_George_at_Deptford_Showing_the_Launch_of_The_Cambridge_(1757).jpg) Bulwersator (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2012 (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:Israel Declaration of Independence.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Declaration_of_Independence.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2012 (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:Company 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: keep for now until the various other matters can be addressed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image which shadows Commons. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it is supposed to stop users from uploading new images under this filename. Is it possible to WP:SALT filename? Bulwersator (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it protects from uploading (see File:Robotlove.gif) Delete and salt Bulwersator (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is entire category of files like this - see Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace Bulwersator (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I think that entire category is useless, but before gigantic deletion request I started thread on village pump - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Why_we_have_files_like_Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders_for_image_namespace.3F Bulwersator (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Regardless of whether the image is kept or not, users can't upload new files under this name since there already is a file on Commons under this name. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, yes they can (and have done!) - a file on commons does not stop any one uploading to en-wiki. I just done a test on File:RabbitEating.JPG (which I know is on commons) and it quite happily let me upload a completely different image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This requires the "reupload-shared" permission, which only comes with the "administrator" user group. See Special:ListGroupRights. This may have worked differently in the past, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The Commons image is a duplicate of File:Africell logo wikipedia.png, and I've requested its deletion. I've also asked that the deleting administrator convert it into a redirect to File:Name.jpg and protect it to prevent recreation; that image is the same as this one, so once that's done we can delete this under F8, and then we can salt this image. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2012 (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:Snowy.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (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:3 disinclination.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3_disinclination.svg Bulwersator (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (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:Hellofalifekanye.ogg

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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in article Bulwersator (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The nominator is wrong. Sample is extensively discussed in the article. There's an entire section of the article dedicated to the composition. The production of the song s notably unique. Short, fair use samples are common practice in Wikipedia song articles. It seems to me the editor falsely nominates alot of material for deletion here. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Critically discussed in the article. — ξ ^xplicit 01:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This photo is being relisted specifically because User:Bruce Campbell removed the tags on the file description page prematurely (see [1]). Users should not remove these tags until the deletion discussion is closed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nom's reasoning has been shown false. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (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:Melford Stevenson portrait.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails non-free content criterion #2 (Wikipedia:NFCC#2): "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." The primary market role of portrait images like this is their use as press photos (as occurred in 1970 when this image was distributed as a press photo by Camera Press) or in encyclopedia articles (as occurred in 2004 when the National Portrait Gallery, London, provided the image for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). The issue is whether or not the need to respect such commercial opportunities outweighs the stated rationale and use of the image to illustrate the article it is used in. In this case, my view is that the commercial opportunities should be respected and the image should not be used and should be deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly as the uploader I think this falls within our criteria. A 300px photo, used to identify a subject who died many years ago, would seem well within the norm of how we use non-free material on Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination doesn't make much sense to me, as anyone who wants a copy of this image can simply take one from the ODNB article. As to our use impacting on any commercial value the full-size photograph may have, I find that difficult to believe, and see no difference between a fair-use rationale in this instance than in any other of a deceased person; newspapers, for instance, would not choose to make use of a 300px image in preference to a full-size one. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFC#UUI §7. Not one of the listed press agencies, but that makes no difference. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a photo from a press or photo agency, it's from the National Portrait Gallery. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ebay suggests that it is a press photo from Camera Press. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same image could just as easily have been taken from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but it actually belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, as I said. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography above suggests that the National Portrait Gallery also sells copies of the photos, so that doesn't change anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the National Portrait Gallery sell copies of the image or not is irrelevant, as this case demonstrates. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#2 only applies to images which are copyrighted in the United States. The National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute was about images which are not copyrighted in the United States. If a work is in the public domain in the United States, Wikipedia normally ignores any commercial interests in other countries. However, if a work isn't in the public domain in the United States, Wikipedia normally doesn't use the image if someone has a commercial interest in the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for this deletion proposal is that the image in some way harms the NPG's commercial opportunities to exploit it, nothing at all to do with copyright concerns. Whether the image is copyrighted in the US or not is irrelevant, as a non-free use rationale has been provided. Otherwise you'd find yourself having to argue for the deletion of all non-free images, not just this one. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concern here is WP:NFCC#2. The policy WP:NFCC specifically refers to files which are not available under a free licence and not in the public domain in the United States. This file is not available under a free licence and is not in the public domain in the United States, so WP:NFCC#2 needs to be taken into consideration here. The images in the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute are in the public domain in the United States, so WP:NFCC doesn't apply at all.

If you take a single screenshot from a film, you don't affect the commercial opportunities of the film: a single screenshot is an insignificant part of the film. However, if you distribute the film in its entirety, you do affect the commercial opportunities of the film. People buy whole films, not individual screenshots. Obviously, we do not distribute films in their entirety. In this case, the photo is the entire work, and people pay specifically for using the photo. Since the photo is the entire work, using the entire photo is in this case comparable to using the whole film, whereas cropping out a small part (say, the man's nose) and using only that small part wouldn't affect the commercial opportunities of the photo as potential buyers need the whole photo, not just the nose. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is not the "entire work"; it's a reduced and low resolution copy that does not in any way affect the NPG's commercial opportunities to exploit the original, and is in no conceivable way comparable to your film analogy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) A couple of points:
- (1) Images do not have to be used exclusively in one way; they can be used in several different ways during their copyright history (sometimes even at the same time). They can be both press photos (if distributed as such, as this image was by Camera Press in 1970) and can also be sold or in some way licensed for use in encyclopedias (as the NPG's image was for the ODNB in 2004). What I'm not clear on is how this affects the situation here - my view is that the press photo copy from 1970 should never have been uploaded to eBay in the first place, and hence us taking a copy from there is at the least morally wrong, even if it is identical to the NPG image. The only legitimately available online copy is the ODNB one, which does not belong to the ODNB but belongs to the NPG, who don't have a copy online, hence the quandary.
- (2) Malleus is quite right to say that as this is a reduced and low-resolution copy, that this is not the 'entire work'. However, he is incorrect to say that this does not affect commercial opportunities - commercial licenses do exist for low-resolution web-image use (see any stock photo library). Whether the NPG (who are a gallery/national archive, not a photo agency) offer those web-use licenses, I don't know (I think they sell posters), but I do know that if you tried that 'no commercial opportunities' argument with any major news agency or photo agency (e.g. Associated Press or Getty), their lawyers might have something to say about that (whether they would bother is another matter).
- (3) The bit about having to delete 'all non-free images' is incorrect. Where well-sourced commentary on the image exists, fair-use requirements are easily met. That's not the case here. And the converse also applies - if your argument (the one put forward by John and Malleus) holds up, then all the NPG and ODNB photos of subjects where no non-free images are available should (in principle) be OK for non-free use. That would be a hell of a lot of non-free use you would be allowing. In total, taken together, such use could accumulatively be considered excessive (you have to remember that the commercial value of a collection of images may be large compared to the individual images, as only a few of the images within a collection may actually sell, but the value adds up over a large collection). Where is the line drawn?

Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Portrait Gallery does not offer commercial licences for low-resolution web image use, and they are not a photo agency, therefore there is no commercial impact on their business.[2] It would be possible though to crop this image to a head and shoulders shot if that would be likely to settle this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided says:

"No image of this work currently exists. We will produce an image for you, if possible, from the original in our collection. The minimum charge for this service is £45.00 to offset the costs of image production [...] but the total you pay will vary, according to how you intend to use the image."

That sounds to me very much like they would add on costs depending on the usage (commercial versus educational) and any other considerations (e.g. exclusivity for a period of time). The other thing to remember here is that an image does exist (in the ODNB), so why do the NPG say no image exists? And the image used in the online edition of the ODNB is a web-resolution image. I've never seen a printed copy of the ODNB, but maybe a print-resolution image was used there as well.

And for the typical range of image licenses offered by the NPG, have a look at an example where there is an online image, such as this one of a painting of the Earl of Balfour. The license options are 'Professional Licence', 'Academic Licence', and 'Creative Commons' (non-commercial). If an image had been available, and someone had taken the third option there, and made a donation, I'd have no objection. Making that donation would feel like the proper thing to do. It's the taking the image from an eBay scan of a 1970 press photo (before the image had been purchased by the NPG) that worries me.

The example above was a bad one though, as it is a PD artwork. An example of a different approach is here (where the NPG don't have any rights over the work), and there is an example here of an image where the copyright includes Camera Press. I've also now found an example of an image that is still in copyright, where there is an online image available, where the NPG only allow a 'Professional License', see here - they explicitly exclude the possibility of an 'Academic Licence' or a 'Creative Commons' license, and that is quite possibly the approach the NPG would take if a scan was made available on their website of the Stevenson image. It should be clear, by the way, from the range of image licenses that they offer, that they are, in effect a distributor of images on a commercial basis, hence my original objection in the deletion nomination.

The suggestion to crop to a head-and-shoulders shot is an interesting one. I'm not entirely sure that would meet all objections, and may in fact change very little (in some cases, cropping or similar changes makes things worse as you risk misrepresenting the original work). It is a possibility worth exploring. Not sure who you would ask about that, though. It would also be nice to get more opinions on this than the four people who have commented so far (including me), but I'm not holding my breath there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on what the NPG might do if ... seems inappropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 18 September 2012 (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:SRJC Crest.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crest, without description Bulwersator (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (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:Skylineoflinzi.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of User:Richard 0533's Uploads. The user has a history of uploading non-free image. Sumanch (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2012 (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:Zhoucun district - 2008.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. No reason to think, considering the uploader's history of many copyright violations, that this is not another copyright violation. Someone may wish to look at the user's remaining uploads to check to see if they get a clean bill of health, but I'm guessing they won't. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of User:Richard 0533's Uploads. The user has a history of uploading non-free image. Sumanch (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak keep User's history has nothing to do here, file's metadata shows that probably the person who uploaded the photo is the copyright owner.--Darius (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you find in the metadata which suggests that it is own work? I can't find any other uploads with the same camera model. Also, the metadata suggest that the image was taken well over a year before the upload, which gives you a lot of time to copy the image from some website. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly an expert, but I can assure you that most website's images are uploaded either with a different format or with a lower resolution than the original pic. Metadata are lost in these cases. A search I made on Google images netted nothing. I also used the word "probably", she/he could have stolen the camera or hacked an e-mail, nobody knows.--Darius (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the user's contributions, there are 10 images without EXIF and 7 images with EXIF. In total, 6 different camera models have been used for taking the 7 photos with EXIF. I would say that the photos with EXIF also are copyvios. Websites such as Flickr often distribute images with EXIF. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most photo sharing websites attach the EXIF info of downloaded image and these pictures were taken over a period of several years. But they were uploaded within days. That is why I am suspicious and that is why I listed them. Moreover, photographers do not change cameras year to year - specially high-end D70, D80, or 40Ds; unless they were provided by the company they were working for. In that case the rights belong to the employer. Sumanch (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If you take a photo as part of your work, the copyright sometimes belongs to the employer and sometimes to the employee, depending on national legislation. In some European countries, the copyright belongs to the photographer no matter under what conditions the photo was taken. Also, some photographers might also have access to their work tools whilst not working. But that's not the point here; the images are presumably copyright violations. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (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.