Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20

Image:Kenneth Faulkner-Alexander.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by KFAlala (notify | contribs). UE, OR, used on now-deleted vanity bio. — Calton | Talk 00:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Selvin.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Selvink (notify | contribs). UE, OR, used on now-deleted vanity bio. — Calton | Talk 00:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SPI busses - single.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tocksin (notify | contribs). Obsoleted PNG image with SVG (Image:SPI single slave.svg) on commons Cburnett 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SPI busses - multiple.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tocksin (notify | contribs). Obsoleted PNG image with SVG (Image:SPI three slaves.svg) on commons Cburnett 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farley.png (talk | delete)

this image was on a page that is not longer here. jwlx 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snares.jpeg (talk | delete)

this image was on a page that is not longer here. jwlx 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bailey.jpeg (talk | delete)

this image was on a page that is not longer here. jwlx 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anthony Gilbert.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by West127 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only contrib by user MECU≈talk 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antonio Roca.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Farenese (notify | contribs). OR, AB only contrib by user MECU≈talk 01:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asexua.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gogoi (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, minimal contribs by user MECU≈talk 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashley Siegel.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ipood (notify | contribs). Warning: Adult Content, UE, NN, minimal contribs by user MECU≈talk 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astigin2.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Greksagat (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only image contribs, possible WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astigin.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Greksagat (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only image contribs, possibly WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ASTIGINLOGO.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Greksagat (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only image contribs, possibly WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astigin.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Greksagat (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only image contribs, possibly WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astiginlogo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Greksagat (notify | contribs). UE, OR, only image contribs, possibly WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asura.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Rudrapatni (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, WP:NOT a free file host, only other contrib was duplicate I CSD I1 (redundant) MECU≈talk 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Attack.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Taylor250 (notify | contribs). UE, OR (sans userpage, but not of user), AB (1 month), user contribs are to self page and inserting these images that were later removed MECU≈talk 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pill.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Taylor250 (notify | contribs). UE, OR (sans userpage, but not of user), AB (1 month), user contribs are to self page and inserting these images that were later removed MECU≈talk 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pill2.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Taylor250 (notify | contribs). UE, OR (sans userpage, but not of user), AB (1 month), user contribs are to self page and inserting these images that were later removed MECU≈talk 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BEJlogo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bert486 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (10 months), many other images deleted, only remaining contribs are images MECU≈talk 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BlockDiagram5 (Small).jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bert486 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (10 months), many other images deleted, only remaining contribs are images MECU≈talk 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BOA Elevator2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Arcwave (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (4 months), used for vandalism since reverted, minor contribs MECU≈talk 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BOA Elevator.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Arcwave (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (4 months), used for vandalism since reverted, minor contribs MECU≈talk 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4400678 l.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Arcwave (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (4 months), used for vandalism since reverted, minor contribs MECU≈talk 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Back to the future time line1.PNG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by The_stuart (notify | contribs). Better version of Image:Back to the future time line.PNG which is an orphan MECU≈talk 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BadGuy.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zackgol (notify | contribs). UE, OR, user's only contribs are images, mostly duplicates MECU≈talk 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LBKB.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zackgol (notify | contribs). UE, OR, user's only contribs are images, mostly duplicates MECU≈talk 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shastad.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zackgol (notify | contribs). UE, OR, user's only contribs are images, mostly duplicates MECU≈talk 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Myspacecrowddbgm.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zackgol (notify | contribs). UE, OR, user's only contribs are images, mostly duplicates MECU≈talk 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mr.M2.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zackgol (notify | contribs). UE, OR, user's only contribs are images, mostly duplicates MECU≈talk 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BadgerBadgerBadger.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Navygreen33 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, user has used account for vandalism 3 times, uploaded this image months prior, only 4 contribs MECU≈talk 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Badgerband.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Uwmb08 (notify | contribs). OR, AB, likely copyvio, source given is to different picture MECU≈talk 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banner curves1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Venkateshkalburgi (notify | contribs). UE? OR, AB (3 weeks) possible WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jazz2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Venkateshkalburgi (notify | contribs). UE? OR, AB (3 weeks) possible WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banner1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pipix79 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Leftover from article that went through AFD MECU≈talk 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-12.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pipix79 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Leftover from article that went through AFD MECU≈talk 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shot1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pipix79 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Leftover from article that went through AFD MECU≈talk 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shot2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pipix79 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Leftover from article that went through AFD MECU≈talk 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2004-11-08.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pipix79 (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Leftover from article that went through AFD MECU≈talk 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BannerBasLIP6.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by ChantalPerrichon (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, only contrib, possible imagevio, copyright text was removed from an article per talk page MECU≈talk 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bannermoonflamewick.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Priestessmoonfire (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB (1 month), possible WP:NOT a free file host, image page looks like advertisement, only contrib MECU≈talk 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bis-tris propane-Space-filling.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bryn_C (notify | contribs). Incorreect structure. Correct structure at commons:Image:Bis-tris-propane-3D-balls.png — Rifleman 82 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sheraton.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Learningwiki (notify | contribs). OR, img is unused, and also unidentified as to which of the very many Sheratons it may be. The uploader hasn't been active for several months. Tagged only as "vacation pic". — cjllw | TALK 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 Michigan State Police Dodge Charger 1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by GPDII (notify | contribs). Image originally uploaded with a watermark. Tagged, and original uploader was asked to upload unwatermarked picture. Uploader failed to respond to such a request within a reasonble time frame (last edit by uploader was in October). Another user used this image to replace another image on Wikipedia. However, the second user attempted to "edit" the watermark, and uploaded that version onto Wikipedia. Image now shows a noticeable blemish in the lower right hand corner and the notation of the edit in image description. Image can be replaced for another suitable image in one article (Dodge Charger (LX)) and is redundant in others (Michigan State Police, Police car — 293.xx.xxx.xx 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Smudging out is not visible at thumbnail resolutions, and the original is still available for someone to do a better smudging out with. It is also the only image of a Dodge Charger police car on Wikipedia at the moment, so I fail to see how it is redundant. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still noticeable. The edit you did only made it worse. Now, if it was larger and abit more unnoticeable, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But seeing it is small and the edit is noticeable, it's better to just get rid of the image and wait for another better copy to be uploaded. It's not really critical to have an image to illustrate the police version unless the image is up for Good article status. The original uploader had a chance to upload an unwatermarked copy, and he hasn't even contributed since October.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I have uploaded the Original Photo that is not watermarked, and added another photo as well. I was unaware that having my initials on my photos would be considered a 'watermark' and would make a photo eligible for removal. Seems silly to me, but my signatures are now not on the photos.

Image kept. IFD removed -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikimod2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Forevera ha (notify | contribs). Orphan — CLW 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiMOD.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Forevera ha (notify | contribs). Orphan — CLW 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AAB223366.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tfoxton (notify | contribs). If I understand Fair use correctly I doubt this image qualifies. As it is actually quite easy to produce an alternative version as is demonstrated by Image:Midhotelbydayjune.jpg that probably makes it redundant. I have also made an image of my own (Image:Midland Hotel.jpg) available. — Pit-yacker 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Anti-Star Trek Cabal logo.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Osgoodelawyer (notify | contribs). Image was uploaded for trolling only during a serries of star trek afds. I do not find it amusing. It may very well be a copyvio. — Cat out 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If considered adequate quality, then it adequately resembles the enterprise and hence is a copyvio. Otherwise it should be deleted for being a too low quality image. --Cat out 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the diff you provided does not appear to be trolling to me, I took it as an attempt at humour from one user to another (perhaps there is more history, but I can only go on what is provided). It is a "free" image, so there is no copyright issue. It appears to be a derivitive work of Image:Enterprise.png. The image is used a user's page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entier serries of star trek afds. This person deletes star trek pages while having that on his userpage. --Cat out 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding us that the nomination is a violation of WP:POINT. JChap2007 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and Image:Enterprise.png as well, which I will separately nominate. There is no way to make a "free" drawing of the Enterprise, much like there is no way to make a "free" drawing of Winnie the Pooh. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works for more information. BigDT 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Cat out 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd really like to keep this, but unfortunately, a free ~~drawing~~ picture of the Enterprise will not be possible until about 60 years from now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes you can make a free drawing of Winnie the Pooh, just not a photograph thereof (or at least not of the Disney one). The latter is an image, the former a representation or caricature. Cool Cat already tried once to get this deleted, the nomination is baseless and in ill faith (no trolling is taking place and none ever did). Cool cat apparently thinks that there is an anti Star Trek cabal, There isn't. Also, Cool cat did not notify either myself or Osgoodelawyer of the deletion attempt. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it a drawing? It looks pretty much like a screenshot from somewhere. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it as an image done in a PC graphics package. Not a screenshot, the posts holding the warp nacelles are at the wrong angles :-) Guy (Help!) 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, no, you can't. Your drawing based on another's work would be a derivative of it. You don't have to have a photographic derivation for something to be a derivative work. You go and try to sell a toy that looks like Winnie the Pooh and see if Disney doesn't come after you ... BigDT 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the comments about copyright violations. They are rather off the mark. Stevage 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, then, I thought it was a screenshot. This is absurd if it isn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - these are horrible misunderstandings of derivative work law and policy. Leave it alone. It's not a screenshot. It's not a derivative work. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be a screenshot to be a derivative work ... that would be absurd and would imply that before computers there were no derivative works. BigDT 06:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keeps. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't understand derivative works, the Federal government lists as an example of a derivative work [1], "Drawing (based on a photograph)". Drawing based on a movie would seem to be right up that alley. In Rogers v. Koons, the appeals court ruled that a man who created a sculpture based on a photograph was liable for copyright infringement. Commons:Commons:Derivative works#Casebook forbids "drawings" of comic book characters, so obviously they feel that a free-hand drawing is a derivative work. Contrary to what you guys may think or would like to believe, photoshop isn't the only way to create a derivative work. Just because there is no binary relationship between this image and a Star Trek episode doesn't mean it isn't derivative. BigDT 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means that the drawing reproduces a key compositional element of the photograph (e.g. a drawing based on the Iwo Jima photograph would be a derivitive work, since it is recognisably derivitive of the original work). I don't see that a small stylised drawing of an object would be covered by that. I could, of course, be wrong, not being an IP lawyer. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As with many things, we could probably call it "fair use" and get away with it under the law because, as you correctly point out, it's a small drawing ... it's not like we are selling model Enterprises. But Wikipedia policy does not allow fair use images to be used in user space ... and despite the inexplicable decision to keep Template:Parody at TFD, there's no legitimate reason for Wikipedian-authored parodies in article space. BigDT 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty familiar with Rogers v Koons. I'm in some of Art Rogers' photos. The issue there was a literal unmodified derivation - a sculpture which was admittedly an exact replica of what was depicted in the photgraph, with the sculptor instructed to do an exact copy from the photograph. This is in no way comparable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you take a look at the ruling, the court held that, "Substantial similarity does not require literally identical copying of every detail." They continued, and I believe this is right on point, "Such similarity is determined by the ordinary observer test: the inquiry is 'whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.'" If you are looking for a court case that says, "it is a copyright violation to create by hand a drawing that looks a lot like the Starship Enterprise", you're probably going to be disappointed. I can't believe we're even having this discussion - I gave you three authorities - copyright.gov, this court case, and the Commons page on derivative works. All three say or imply that this type of copying is a violation. It seems rather straight forward to me. BigDT 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Star Trek" and "Enterprise" are trademarks of Paramount Pictures. Even if Image:Enterprise.png doesn't look like the Star Trek Enterprise, the fact that it claims to be a representation of the Enterprise makes it ipso facto an infringement of their trademark rights. The same applies to the use of this image in derivative works associated with the Star Trek films. Sorry, but they have to go. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it state that? Where does it use the trademarked name? You can't even see a third of the image because of the stripe. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it state what? You can check with the USPTO if you want to confirm the trademark status, although a quick search at Google should confirm this for you[2][3]. If you're implying that the trademarked name doesn't appear in the picture itself, then you're missing the point. The words "Star Trek" appear in the filename of this image, and in the pages that link to it. There is no escaping the fact that the starship Enterprise is a central element of this image's design. It makes no difference that a third of it is obscured; if we can't claim fair use then we can't use it, period. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's funny, I'd love to be able to keep it, but our own cautious copyright rules, based on existing copyright law, require that it should go, and there's no overriding encyclopedic reason to keep it. -- Karada 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no copyright issue. Did Larry Flynt get crippled in vain? Proto::► 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Larry Flynt have to do with anything? He was using the likeness of Jerry Falwell in a parody. This isn't a parody and if it were, it could only be used as a non-free image. BigDT 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EmpRule.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Argentieri (notify | contribs). The image is inconsistent. It gives exact numbers in the graph, but the text under the graph implies that the numbers are only approximate. A better image is available at Image:Standard deviation diagram.png. — Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turda_Gorge_RO_2003b.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by [[User talk:Wandering piranga 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)#Image:Turda_Gorge_RO_2003b.jpg listed for deletion|Wandering piranga 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:Wandering piranga 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)|action=edit}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Wandering piranga 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)|contribs]]). Duplicate of Turda_Gorge_RO_2003.jpg — Wandering piranga 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Image:1995.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Garcia90 (notify | contribs). CV, no references at all

I tried to get it better, but I failed. What it is is a picture of a strip mall poorly Photoshopped. It does not need to exist on Wikimedia Foundation servers. Speedy delete, criteria G1 or strong delete, depending on if this is G1able. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bobosong.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LiamTalleyWalsh (notify | contribs). Unused, unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a free picture host. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Same image as Image:BoboSong.jpg. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3koreans.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LiamTalleyWalsh (notify | contribs). Unused, unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a free picture host. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is one of three small files on a User's Page. I don't think it is excessive. -Nv8200p talk 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tapout.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LiamTalleyWalsh (notify | contribs). Unused, unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a free picture host. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is one of three small files on a User's Page. I don't think it is excessive. -Nv8200p talk 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chuck Amato-NC State.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mecu (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Media guide photo of Chuck Amato ... I am not incredibly opposed to the use of legitimate media guide photos (meaning it is really from a media guide, not just some website), but this thing is of such low quality, what's the point? BigDT 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I {{ddb-author}}'ed it. --MECU≈talk 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Enterprise.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Rohitbd (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) This image was mentioned in another IFD discussion. It is obviously a derivative work of the real Enterprise. Making a freehand drawing doesn't get around copyright restrictions. There is no way to create a "free" drawing of the Enterprise, a Pokemon, Winnie the Pooh, or any other copyrighted creation. Only the original copyright holder can authorize a derivative work. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works for more on the subject. BigDT 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) BigDT 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - That is a fundamental misunderstanding of derivative work copyright law and WP policy. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, tell that to the Federal government. They list as an example of a derivative work [4], "Drawing (based on a photograph)". Drawing based on a movie would seem to be right up that alley. Please explain to me exactly how a drawing of a ship intended to look like the Enterprise is not a derivative work. BigDT 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, by the way, check out Rogers v. Koons. In that case, the appeals court ruled that a man who created a sculpture based on a photograph was liable for copyright infringement. BigDT 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GWH. If absolutely necessary, the NCC 1701 can be removed from the image. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trademark infringement. See my comments for Image:Anti-Star Trek Cabal logo.png. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, if considered adequate quality, then it adequately resembles the enterprise and hence is a copyvio. Otherwise it should be deleted for being a too low quality image. --Cat out 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is not a copyright violation (the design of the Star Trek ships is trademarked, not copyrighted). This would be trademark violation if it was used to imply Paramount sanction, or if it's use negatively impacted Paramount's ability to sell toys, posters, DVDs, etc. The copyright actually belongs to the person who created the drawing (just like Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup painting). —MJBurrage • TALK • 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to refrain from posting on some things when I am up that late. The Star Trek ships are works of art, as opposed to useful articles, and so this falls under Derivative works. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LolVkm.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Deadman V1 (notify | contribs). Just pure garbage, used to vandalize the Voodoo Kin Mafia article. — «»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]