Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 April 3

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 April 3)

April 3

edit
I am the uploader. This was uploaded a long time ago for use on my profile, but I no longer have use for it. Please delete. --^pirate 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per request -Nv8200p talk 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded by Taylor28 (notify). OR. Orphaned in a merge, and unneeded for anything else.- - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Taylor28 (notify). OR. Orphaned in a merge, and unneeded for anything else.- - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by SlashDot (notify). No vote. Was tabbed for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but the image spells out a valid fair use rationale. Still, might not be necessary to have this particular image on Wikipedia.- BD2412 T 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep it's a valid image. SlashDot 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, image does not qualify for fair use as free alternatives exist. Plus, the issue is further complicated in that the image was simply taken from jlist.com. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree that free alternatives exist, but the fair use rationale is also legitmate. That it was taken from jlist.com is a non-issue the delivery of the content does not affect the publication of the content -- it even aids the fair use case because the cover image was reproduced by a party other than the comic book company. the primary determinant of fair use is not whether a free-alternative exists (that is a minor consideration out of many others), but rather the single most important factor is lost commericability of the video game-- since this is only the cover of a video game, there is no way the commerciability of the video game is at stake.--Muchosucko 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that j-list had it only means that they were given specific permissions to use it in order to sell the item in question. This is no different from letting a store use a company logo to sell products that company sells. It in no way aids fair use, simply because it was "reproduced". It's the exact opposite of what you are thinking. And this isn't something you get to have an opinion on, this is about copyright law. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nor is "commericability" a factor. Copyright laws exists because people have a right to choose how their works are used. It has nothing at all to do with how much money it makes, or if it hurts it in the market place. There have been several cases where someone was violating copyright laws and that actually helped the persons who owned the copyright, but still does not change the fact that it was a copyright violation. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I would encourage you not to discuss copyright law as if you had a solid grasp of it, since this sort of semi-educated talk about the law is rampant on Wikipedia and misleads even more people. If you are unqualified, as your statements make clear, please do no pretend you are. "commerciability" is actually the single most important factor in fair use cases (Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997)). To say that it is not, proves you have not read the relevant case law. When you say something like "It in no way aids fair use," you once again demonstrate that you misunderstand fair use guidlines about first publication, and republication, and the nature of the copyrighted work (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987). "There have been several cases where someone was violating copyright laws and that actually helped the persons who owned the copyright, but still does not change the fact that it was a copyright violation." Please cite.--Muchosucko 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to be a lawyer to understand copyright laws. The implication that "oh, you're just a normal person, you don't know what you are talking about" angers me to no end. I won't call myself an expert, I'm far from it, but I do know what you are saying is a load of bullshit.
You are insulted that I disagreed with your interpretation of copyright laws, and now you're personally attacking my own credibility. I only have the creditability of some guy who has a basic and fair knowledge of copyright laws, but even with that I would think the points I made are obvious. I'm sorry you feel that I must become an expert in order to discuss this at "your level", but no, that is not required.
My points are valid and self-explanatory within copyright law and fair use's own definitions. I don't doubt the cases you cited might show otherwise, but I do doubt the situation is the same, and even I know there are times when the courts contradict themselves. Copyright law and fair use might not always be clear, but I do think their context in this situation is clear.
As for citing a source for situations where copyvios were made even though they were profitable for the copyright holder, I'm very surprised that you don't have such an example of that when you had other examples of copyright law court cases. Again, you just want to wipe out any credibility I might have because I disagreed with you. I'm sure there are many examples, but the one I had in mind was the dispute over Google Print. One of the Association of American University Presses's main arguments was that it didn't matter if Google Print helped people find more books, and might lead to higher sales, this did not make a difference because owning the copyright means the copyright holder gets to choose, even if that choice is not in their favor. This argument was made during a webcasted debate of the issue hosted at the NYPL [1]. I know this is far from the best example, as it was simply an argument during a debate and not the findings of a court. But you and I both know what I was trying to say, you know there are examples, and I wouldn't doubt that you know of specific examples. So I'll save my efforts for another day. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to remind you, this is not about proving one's point or "winning" a debate. This isn't even a "vote", but a discussion on wether or not the image should be kept, and the concerns around it. But you don't seem interested in that, you just want to say that you know more than I do, so I guess your task is completed. Well done. -- Ned Scott 05:27,
Ned, I don't understand why you are being so competitive. Again, the practice of law is not a competition, but a search for who has the stronger argument. You call my arguments "bullshit," which may be true, but without legal proof, or any elaboration thereof, it is your arguments that become bullshit. I will once again point out your disqualifications as well as your lack of legal citations. Your new argument seems to point to some webcast, which is neither official nor legally binding. This discusses an ongoing case with Google Print completely unrelated. I actually don't know what you are trying to say; I tried to point out in my first post why I do not, and the legal reasons for why I do not understand you. If you have no legal backing, please do not pretend you do and deem one case "fair use" and another case not as you did here. It is destructive to the law.--Muchosucko 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not need legal proof to say the copyright law is what it is, beyond citing the copyright law itself. I know this is far from the best example, as it was simply an argument during a debate and not the findings of a court. But you and I both know what I was trying to say, you know there are examples, and I wouldn't doubt that you know of specific examples. So I'll save my efforts for another day. Also, did you just say "It is destructive to the law."? Another absurd accusation that fails. I do not know for sure that this case is a bad fair use issue, but I do know that your arguments that because it was used to sell something makes it ok is complete bullshit. The point of IfD is to explore possible issues like this, not necessarily to state solid conclusions, or arguments, like in a trail. I may not be an expert, but even I can see your arguments are more an attempt to make yourself look smart, and a contradiction to copyright law, than a respectable point in a discussion. -- Ned Scott 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need legal proof to say the copyright law is what it is, beyond citing the copyright law itself Pleas just stop making up legal precedent. Please do not make legal fiat. You have simply lost all legal grounding. I have no problem with people offering their opinions, which you are free to do. But I do have a problem when people offer their opinions as legal fact. It's simply wrong. There is nothing ad hominem about my arguments. --Muchosucko 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone reads or learns about a traffic light law, and then says "if you run a red light you have broken that traffic law", are they not correct? Do they need to be an expert or cite court findings for such a simple statement to be believed? What is it that I am making up? This whole arguement you've done nothing but try to belittle me, as if the situation was so complex to require such experties in the first place.
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. [2]
Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the copyright owner. [3]
-- Ned Scott 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, respectfully, you simply misunderstand fair use. Please do not make legal fiat. If you consider this belittling, then learn the law, and you won't feel belittled. Most of your quotes do not address the issue. Ned: according to your second quote, you are infringing on Nolo's copyright of their text! Please remove it immediately or show proof Nolo authorized you to paste that here before Wikipedia gets sued. I'm serious! --Muchosucko 05:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the over all issue of the image at this point, and we haven't been talking about the image for some time now. Most of the things I've been saying are in reply to your immediate accusations that someone has to be an expert to comment on copyright law. I don't feel belittled by you, but I do feel frustrated that you would rather be a dick about this than help resolve an issue. I can understand that you felt that I was asserting that I had a more than basic understanding of the laws, but then I even stated (more than once) that I am not claiming to be an expert. What claims have I made are legal fiat? What claims have I made that are even extraordinary? What context are you taking this in? I asked you repeatedly to show me where I am wrong, and you have not. Instead, you just say "you don't understand, stop". Did you even read my message? You just keep repeating yourself over and over, never addressing what I say. You are simply trying to exclude me from the discussion all together because you feel I am beneath you.
Also, if credibility is an issue for you, it should be noted that you have several images (User talk:Muchosucko) that have been removed from Wikipedia because of copyright problems, lack of source citing, and so on. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I'm not sure we can continue until you remove what you pasted from that website. You deem it copyright infringment.--Muchosucko 20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the story with those images, anyways? I mean, you are the copyright expert, didn't you know what you were doing before you uploaded them? -- Ned Scott 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I think you've won the debate.--Muchosucko 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Acaz93 (notify). UE. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.- AlistairMcMillan 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tykell (notify). OR from deleted article. Also Image:Bryy.gif, Image:Collins.gif, Image:Josh.gif, Image:Meret.gif, Image:Vyrus.gif, Image:Hessotcs.jpg, Image:Jay.gif, same uploader, same reason.- Drat (Talk) 04:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid objections, but the image is too useful to be deleted until a superior version is avaliable which addresses your concerns. Photoshop might come in handy.Timothy Usher 10:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, unsourced controversial, to say the least, information is not useful. Besides, the same image was uploaded by the same user into many interwikis, and I'm not going to correct somebody in such many places. So, I stick to my delete vote. After all, it can be then reuploaded after appropriate adjustments. Cmapm 11:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this discussion shouldnt even be here, since the image is on commons and isnt on wikipedia - it should be here. Also you only need to change the one image on commons and it will change all the images anywhere it appears on other wikipedias. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've stopped and looked at this a few times and it is quite interesting. It's out of the ordinary, and something you won't find anywhere else. It also acts to break up the page. The user who created this is a credible person, as he has made many such maps. Strong keep, as I disagree with everything said above. Maybe someone just needs to tweek it, but not delete it. → J@red  19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the info on the 76 and 84 boycotting countries was the wikipedia pages on the respective olympics. The source for the 1980 info was old TIME magazine archives available online from 1980 (I could not find a complete list of countries anywhere), then I also updated the map based on an expanded version of the 1980 boycott page list. Ok - youre probably right about China, I have taken it out. (although just because it didnt participate before doesnt mean it couldnt have boycotted these - it may have planned to participate for the first time there, but then boycotted them) Taiwan is marked correctly - it did boycott in 76, although for a different reason than the African boycott. Yes, it does not show all those which participated in the 1980 games because it would be too complicated to show all possible combinations of participated/not participated for three games on the one map - I have now created separate maps of just the participating countries to solve this: 1976, 1980 and 1984 -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work! I change my vote to keep now, but, please, when you get more information, update the image accordingly. Cmapm 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jimfbleak (notify). Nonfree license- A.J. 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by pd_THOR (notify). CV, per http://store.roddenberry.com/legal.cfm.- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Image:Couples-natalieandmatt.jpg OR, UE --Jaranda wat's sup 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dandelion1 (notify). This is an image of several nude people, one or two might be underage as well. Unencyclopedic at the least. - Hyphen5 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. This is a great image and is used on at least two articles Nudity and Nackt Radtour. What is the reference about being underage? Underage for what? Please refer to specific Wikipedia Policy if you have a specific problem. See also WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.Dandelion1 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very policy you cite says: "Close-up, sexualised image of children are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will not be included." --Hyphen5 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the policy, then I think it would be hard to argue that the image is deserving of deletion. The image is not designed to arouse nor was it taken in a sexualized context. I don't think showing a parent holding children while carrying on a conversation is sexy. I don't think anybody in the picture is sexy or that the image has any sex appeal or the people in the picture are in anyway sexually aroused. Cheers, Dandelion1 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I honestly don't find this image of a child very sexy, lewd, or lascivious. Nor very close up... So, far-away sexualized images of children are appropriate? --Muchosucko 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is neither a close-up nor sexualised. --Craig (t|c) 07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason, compelling or otherwise, to delete the image. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete I have no problems with the image content, but I see no supporting documentation that the copyright holder has agreed to free use. -Nv8200p talk 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is a good way to permanently show supporting documentation that the copyright holder has agreed to free use? Dandelion1 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Nv8200p. I'll go ask User:Dandelion1 to clarify what the "Photo courtesy of Ralf" really means. User:dbenbenn 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please see my talk page for a response to your copyright inquiries on images depicting nudity. Dandelion 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't say it is sexual. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 09:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Vsion (notify). No fair use rationale- Esprit15d 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Tabercil (notify). This picture is actually that of porn actress Jamie Lynn, not Crystal Klein.- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it was misidentified on the original site by Luke Ford. Olessi 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Moncton.jpg Nonfree, orphan. dbenbenn | talk 21:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. According to the edit summary of the person who added it, it was taken by that person. I placed it on the Moncton page, where it belongs. I see no reason to delete it. → J@red  21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not available under a free license. dbenbenn | talk 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user name of the person who uploaded this image has the same username on the flicr image sharing site. It was obviously he who uploaded it, and it's not taken from the site. This deletion is obsurd. → J@red  22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, the person who uploaded the photo here was the author. He has specifically marked his photo as cc-by-nd-2.0 at Flickr, and hasn't indicated any change here. So the image is nonfree. Sorry if you find that fact absurd. dbenbenn | talk 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but how do you know that he uploaded it from flikr? The summary only says that you can view the full version at that site and gives no indication that it in fact came from there. Therefore, you are only safe to assume that he uploaded a smaller version of it from his hard drive. Is my logic correct? → J@red  01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well yes, of course the uploader uploaded the picture from his computer, as it is impossible to upload in any other way. But that implies nothing about the copyright status. The fact remains that the copyright holder has explicitly stated the photo is cc-by-nd-2.0, and has not explicitly stated it is available under any other license. He has been asked to clarify the situation at his talk page. If he frees the photo, fine; otherwise, it has to be deleted. dbenbenn | talk 23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the uploader holds the copyright, I agree. The problem is that has not shown a willingness to license the image under a free license. Equally, I could take a photo, and thus hold the copyright, and upload it to Wikipedia stating that it is mine and that no-one else may use it. The problem here isn't that the image doesn't belong to the uploader, it's that the uploader (= the copyright holder) has failed to agree to a free license by which it can be used in Wikipedia. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He clearly states in the summary of the image: I am the person who took the picture, and the photo has the appropriate license for you to use on your website. Please mention my name in photo credits if possible.. Why is it that we assume flikr has the correct license, and it is not the other way around? What if he was mistaken (as I suggest below) when he selected a license for his image on flikr? Why is it that a statement made by the copyright holder is shadowed by easily confuse-able templates? He did not put the cc-by-nd-2.0 license on for the use on wikipedia, only on flikr. For wikipedia he instead gave specific permissions to use the image. I thought that was allowed, for a copyright holder to be able to license his or her works in different ways depending on who they are licensing too? -- Ned Scott 07:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the guy who uploaded it selected the wrong option on the pop-up menu for license. That is NOT a copyright violation. That is a simple misunderstanding, one that can easily be corrected. All cited reasons for delete are irrelevant. Making an issue out of this is absurd. It's so PAINFULLY CLEAR that no violation has been committed. But rather than correct the template being used you guys would rather waste everyone's time and talk about how "typos" are grounds for deletion. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a free license is specified by the uploader. No, it's not a copyright violation, per se, and yes, the uploader does hold the copyright to the image. However, according to his Flikr page, the image is licensed under cc-by-nd-2.0, which for the purposes of Wikipedia is a non-free license. We have allowed time for him to agree to an alternative, and unfortunately (since it is a nice image) he has not yet given a response. I see no choice but to delete the image, in that case — we cannot wait forever "in case" an alternative license is specified. The only licensing terms provided are those on the Flikr page, which clearly state cc by nd. We cannot (as Ned Scott seems to be advocating), assume that the uploader "chose the wrong option" and "correct the template". └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:PMcCartney.JPG CV cropped covers not fair use, also we have free images. Arniep 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Dusky-Woodswallow-230.jpg Nonfree, removed from Artamidae and Woodswallow. dbenbenn | talk 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Johnk2.jpg CV
Directly under image on source page is a copyright statement. Sue Anne 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright statement is only a threat for the uneducated. All images created after 1989, are copyrighted unless expressly released. Instead of listing it under IFD, you should encourage the uploader to find a fair use doctrine. I cannot find a good rationale myself.--Muchosucko 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_April_3&oldid=1110684344"