Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Image:2005 0103Image30162 edited.jpg

Image:2005 0103Image30162 edited.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by MichaelLaurenceRaper (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopaedic personal photo, was included in a single revision of a the uploader's userpage and immediately thereafter removed- Iamunknown 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 0821b day0006.JPG

Image:2006 0821b day0006.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Andrew3705 (notify | contribs).

Unencylcopaedic family photo; appears based users' few other contributions to be included in Sunderland, Vermont, but never was and all the contributors' contributions have since been removed- Iamunknown 04:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1020021792 l.jpg

Image:1020021792 l.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Zen34 (notify | contribs).

Apparently a self-made auto-photograph of author Patrick Chapman. The article currently has a different image by the same user, and it appears that this image is now unnecessary.- Iamunknown 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:100 1811.JPG

Image:100 1811.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Brods (notify | contribs).

Unencylcopaedic personal photo, user's only contribution- Iamunknown 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Asiir 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me2324.JPG

Image:Me2324.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alex436 (notify | contribs).

UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexgilbert.JPG

Image:Alexgilbert.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alex436 (notify | contribs).

UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crazy.JPG

Image:Crazy.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alex436 (notify | contribs).

UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Underallevilsposter.JPG

Image:Underallevilsposter.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alex436 (notify | contribs).

UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drew.jpg

Image:Drew.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Subway Eat Frisch (notify | contribs).

UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:180px-Percy Nobby Norton.jpg

Image:180px-Percy Nobby Norton.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Silentbob4477 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopaedic personal photo, provides no context; the uploader never included it in a single revision of an article; user is now blocked indefinitely and the image is of no more use- Iamunknown 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S 047.jpg

Image:S 047.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Silentbob4477 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopaedic personal photo, provides no context; the uploader never included it in a single revision of an article; user is now blocked indefinitely and the image is of no more use- Iamunknown 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danolshe.jpg

Image:Danolshe.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SVDunk21 (notify | contribs).

UE, only links to vanity page flagged for speedy deletion. RJASE1 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:18757375a2615118915b99346030l.jpg

Image:18757375a2615118915b99346030l.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Stevene20 (notify | contribs).

UE,OR,LQ, user never included it in an a page (it may be being used elsewhere on the Internet)- Iamunknown 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1432891605 l.jpg

Image:1432891605 l.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gcabral (notify | contribs).

Never been included in an article, provides little context, low quality, possible copyright violation (from [1])- Iamunknown 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RonGorodetzky.jpg

Image:RonGorodetzky.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Digger twit (notify | contribs).

Copyright vio listed as CC license but taken from [2] also not used in any articles so no need for it.SirGrant 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense picture, doctored photo of current photo in Tom DeLay. crazyviolinist 13:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:French uniform emblem.jpg

Image:French uniform emblem.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by smith2006 (notify | contribs).

Copyright Violation. Images are copyright axis101.bizland.com see image talk page for correspondence with author of site — 82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Military insignia are PD worldwide. I am tagging the image as such. Nardman1 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Military-Insignia tag would only be valid in case of someone creating a likeness or representation of the actual award eg. a drawing, metal casting, reproduction etc and even then only US federal law is known about in that case. This image was created by someone else who owns the copyright on that image. If you want to create a likeness of the insignia in paint go ahead. Also military-insignia template is under discussion of being deleted due to the complete fuzziness surrounding its legality outside USA.[3].82.29.229.116 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Should these be kept until the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions has come to a conclusion? --Iamunknown 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer only holds copyright if additional "artistic information" is added to the PD material (such as camera angle, lighting, etc.) I don't believe the photographer holds any copyright at all. However, this is moot, since the photographer agreed that the image could be used by anyone, provided the website is referenced (which is compatible with the GFDL), so there shouldn't be a problem. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not PD. It is copyright and stolen. Arguably the design of the patch is PD but with the applicable template under discussion for deletion this is not the place to argue that.

If you think the photographer would have any difficulty proving additional "artistic information" for an image he created then you are just not dealing with the reality of court action.

The creator of the work has in fact, declined to release his work for use on wikipedia via CreativeCommons2 (applicable considering someone stole his work and uploaded the image) and has asked for details on the process defined here to get his stolen work removed via the legal team. GFDL provides no protection for the creator against his work being used commercially, redistributed, or edited. The creator doesnt want these aspects of CC2 & GFDL ruining his work.

The FairUse rationale also does not apply. This award is not unique as an award. The object illustrated is not the subject of the article and I believe other PD images of that award type already exist on the wiki.

Finally, lets not lose sight of the fact that the uploader, smith2006, lied when uploading this stolen material and the other stolen image (below). Grounds enough for them both to be deleted already but here they are one week later lulz!

With respect to this one, a scan or photograph of a 2-d object is not considered "creative" and no copyright is inferred. So I can scan an old photo, place it on my website, and scream copyright until I'm blue in the face, but no copyright is inferred from my act of scanning. Still, though, I don't think we should be jerks and use the image if the guy clearly doesn't want us to, even though we could, legally. The image below is probably different ... if it were just a scan of the sheet of paper ... ok ... but laying the emblem on top of it might be a creative act - I have no idea. --BigDT 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iron Cross Charlemagne Division Officer.jpg

Image:Iron Cross Charlemagne Division Officer.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by smith2006 (notify | contribs).

Copyright Violation. Images are copyright axis101.bizland.com see image talk page for correspondence with author of site — 82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Military insignia are not copyrightable per international law and the document beneath is PD in the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a work of the Nazi government. Nardman1 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, Military-Insignia tag would only be valid in case of someone creating a likeness or representation of the actual award eg. a drawing, metal casting, reproduction etc and even then only US federal law is known about in that case. This image was created by someone else who owns the copyright on that image. If you want to create a likeness of the insignia in paint go ahead. Also military-insignia template is under discussion of being deleted due to the complete fuzziness surrounding its legality outside USA.[4].82.29.229.116 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Should these be kept until the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions has come to a conclusion? --Iamunknown 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Telautograph-01.gif

Image:Telautograph-01.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alex756 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, superseded by Image:Telautograph-01.png — Bigr Tex 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sabersbeads.jpg

Image:Sabersbeads.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Saberscorpx (notify | contribs).

The only use for this file was in the deleted article Saber's Beads an unsourced vanity neologism perpetrated by the uploader which has been deleted twice at AfD. Image has inconsistent licenses. Supposedly comes from astropix.com, but if you click the link given it is to a webhost uploaded by the selfsame Saberscorpx. — Nardman1 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the decision, I hope the WK staff gets a chance to see this phenomenon live someday. Imagine it simultaneously sparkling in the low-altitude turbulence. Truly a rare and beautiful event. Btw, my sister's kid learned about Saber's Beads just the other day in school (3 states away). Thanks for your continued support. -saberscorpx

Delete The accusations of vanity and perpetration are unnecessary and unprofessional. The image should be deleted if it is not needed in any articles, which appears as such because the article is now deleted. --Iamunknown 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mcr press2.jpg

Image:Mcr press2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lindsey8417 (notify | contribs).

We have freely licensed images at commons:My Chemical Romance. This unfree image is being used instead. Yes, it is more professional, yes it shows the entire band at a particularly important period in their careers, no that's not enough reason to ignore our free content principles. — Jkelly 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The freely licensed images at Commons do not even show all current band members. Mcr press2.jpg a press image for the band is far more useful than an image that doesn't portray the entire band (which essentially is the point of having a picture). -Lindsey8417 11:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is not being used to illustrate any particular line-up. It's merely being used to illustrate the band. WP:FUC#1 requires that no free alternative exists or could be created. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does illustrate a particular line up for the band. The image shows the current members which differs from the members they had before 2004 (as the drummer was replaced that year.)-Lindsey8417 09:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does show a particular lineup, but it is not being used for that purpose. It's used in the infobox to show the band. Any photo of the band, with any lineup, would be suitable to use in the infobox just as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Half_of_a_green_bellpepper.jpg

Image:Half_of_a_green_bellpepper.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bellpepper (me) (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. I was using it on my userpage and now I'm not. It's pretty low quality, I don't think anyone else wants it. — Bellpepper 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KFC by hed.jpeg

User has been vandalizing KFC, so I can see this image being used only as a means to more vandalism. Further, it uses copyrighted images in a way that could be legally perilous, bordering on libel of the company. — Pat Payne 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KFC by hed.jpg

Missed this one. it's the same exact image, and he has used this one in vandalism of other pages. I can see no other reason for it. — Pat Payne 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]