Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17

[edit]

Pitch_CC.JPG

[edit]
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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pitch_CC.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lorenzinho (notify | contribs).
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.

Win7 build6956.png

[edit]
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 - Solely on the basis of NFCC#4. All copyright holder's have the legal, and wikipedia enforced, right to determine when and if they publish material. That someone stole this and posted it on the web does not suddenly make it legally published nor make us hosting the image ok. Microsoft, the copyright holder, has not chosen that this image be published and as such it is a clear and obvious violation of NFCC#4 to host it here. For those who insist we must illustrate the article, find an image that microsoft HAS published.....or wait patiently for the software's release - Peripitus (Talk) 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Win7 build6956.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sotcr (notify | contribs).
  • Fails several WP:NFCC criteria.
    • NFCC 2 - pirated screenshots of unreleased software almost certainly have an impact on the copyright holder's ability to market it.
    • NFCC 3 - 1280x1024 is not low-res
    • NFCC 4 - This specific image does not seem to appear on the linked source, and the source is a copyvio. This image has never been published by the actual copyright holder. Mr.Z-man 06:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think it cannot fail NFCC 2 as the product in question was never intented to be marketed, thus there can be no impact on the ability to do so. It does not fail NFCC 4 as it has been publicly displayed before (which is where the software has been stolen after all) and screenshots are almost never published as such, only the products they show. It does not matter that the URL linked does not show the image - it's not the copyright of Windows7center.com that is at stake here but the one of Microsoft. NFCC 3 might be violated but I think resizing the image will remedy this instead of deleting. Regards SoWhy 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not intended to be marketed? This is basically a pre-beta version of the next Windows release, to be released in a few years. The exact product pictured wasn't intended to be marketed, but saying "well, since its not specifically the actual final release (which doesn't exist yet), just something that's vastly similar, its fine" is just being dense. Just because its an unfinished prototype doesn't mean having pictures of it released won't harm future marketing. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It won't harm it as a pre-beta image will never have any measurable impact in marketing the final product (there are dozen images of versions prior to this one). And even if it had, it's not important. As said in the post on WT:CSD that brought forth this IfD, the version originates from a pirated version stolen after a presentation. So Microsoft showed exactly this version to a multitude of people. Reproducing a single screenshot after that was done essentially showing exactly the same cannot harm their ability to market it. Regards SoWhy 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy. I'd agree that it should be reduced in size, though. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep The legality of booting up a pre-release build of windows 7 doesn't factor in to the discussion. NFCC 2 doesn't apply because Microsoft isn't in the business of selling screenshots of their software. NFCC 2 is to make sure we aren't using FU images of "news" from newspapers or stock/wire service photos. NFCC 3 is a valid complaint which may be solved through uploading a new version. NFCC 4 is likewise valid. I would consider "publishing" of this image a murky area. Are we only allowed to link what has been placed in print or electronic media? If so, we have a smaller stable of screenshots to pick from: Ars Technica, ZDnet, etc. If we feel that is a problem then we can just upload one of those screenshots. Otherwise if we take the collection of creative work that produced the image to be "published" in the source code, NFCC 4 is met right off the bat. The latter is probably the standard we use for images of non-pirated software, but we could do well to adhere to images pulled from reviews and previews in reliable sources. Either way I don't see a compelling reason to delete the image in the nomination. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Z-man was unclear. This specific build (6956) was pirated, which in my opinion makes this image different with respect to publication than if it were a screenshot from a build (like 6801) that Microsoft intentionally distributed for review. Dragons flight (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because asserting fair use rights for an unpublished work is preemptive of the creator's right to decide the time and manner of first distribution, courts have historically held fair use claims for unpublished works to a much higher standard than fair use for published works. This specific build was stolen from Microsoft. [1] Assuming they never intended it to be distributed, then the images could potentially impact Microsoft's commercial interests by creating an impression of Windows 7's appearance that might be different than what Microsoft ultimately intends to deliver. Now, fair use is not excluded by the argument that this is published without the author's consent, but in consideration of the undistributed nature of the work we should consider whether the rationale is particularly strong or not. Right now, the only article it appears in is Windows 7, and in that article the image is not discussed at all. I must conclude that the image is merely there for "identification", which is a relatively weak justification. Given that this is the case, I would argue that using the illegally obtained build 6956 is not justifiable, and we should prefer a screenshot from one of the builds that Microsoft has been distributing to developers and IT professionals (for example Microsoft gave copies of build 6801 to IT news operations to build support for their product). If there were a stronger reason why we need to exhibit this particular build, I might support keeping it, but the article previously used an image from a legitimately distributed build, and the fair use argument is significantly stronger in that case and so I believe it should be preferred over the illegitimately obtained build 6956. Dragons flight (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said above, Microsoft showcased this build so they intended that people see this build. If someone had made a photograph of the presentation it would show the same and yet noone would bother how it was done. So I disagree that the way the image was taken has any impact on the copyright of the product itself. The copyright exists, fully, no matter how the product was released. But fair use applies to those pictures as well. For example if someone took a picture of something that should not be photographed, they still hold the copyright to that photograph, however illegal it was to take it. If we want to use this photograph, we have to argue fair use on basis of this copyright, not on basis on how the photo was created. This is a similar situation, we need to separate copyright from how it was created. We wouldn't have this discussion if Microsoft leaked the photo or if someone took it via photograph, so we should treat those cases the same. Regards SoWhy 11:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are writing a book, and I steal a draft of it, the courts have usually held that I do not have a fair use right to quote that draft. I would have that right if the book had already been published. Context of distribution matters in judging the balancing test at the heart of fair use considerations. For me, this fails that test. In addition, you haven't offered any argument about why we should prefer this illegitimately obtained image over any number of legitimately obtained ones. Without such a argument, I think it stands to reason that we should give preference to the less ethically dubious images of similar quality. Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if I write a book and then hand out the draft to certain people (like at a conference) and someone makes a picture of it, it should be perfectly reasonable to assume that it is covered under FU. It's the same here. It was not stolen from a safe...it was stolen when it was presented anyway. SoWhy 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We aren't talking about someone taking a picture of their presentation. We are talking about people stealing the software off of a Microsoft computer and putting it on the internet. I don't consider those things comparable at all. It is the difference between an author offering a teaser about what is in the book, and someone stealing the book to learn everything that is in it. If they had handed out 6956 to conference attendees, like they did 6801 at a previous conference, it would be different, but apparently they had no intention of distributing 6956. On a related point, there are pictures from the presentation. If you want to claim fair use about one of them, then okay. But I don't buy that just because a presentation was given that it then follows that the stolen software should be considered fair game. Dragons flight (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • They didn't "hand out" build 6956. It was stolen from Microsoft at the event. They were actually handing out build 6801 at WinHEC China. We have reliable sources to demonstrate all of this. Warren -talk- 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per obvious, image is to display Windows 7, it was showcased by Microsoft. Nuff' said. --Taylor Karras (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a screenshot of a build Microsoft let people use. It easily could have been produced without piracy. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that its a beta DOES NOT MATTER. If it is published, its published. Its just not going to be mass-distributed. The work itself was "exhibited outside Wikipedia" as someone took a screenshot of it and put it online. ViperSnake151 14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ad 2 - Microsoft will not cancel the whole OS just because of a single screenshot. Ad 3 - Microsoft will not cancel the whole OS just because the screenshot is clear and legible. Ad 4 - who gives a damn? M3n747 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2008 (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.

HMAS encounter crest.png

[edit]
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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMAS encounter crest.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hossen27 (notify | contribs).
  • Although HMAS Encounter was completed in 1905 and decommissioned from military service in 20, the ship badge format used for this image was not created until after World War II (see Naval heraldry#Royal Australian Navy) This specific version of the RAN ship badge would have been created after 1975. Therefore, ship would never wore the badge as seen here (the ship was scuttled in 1932), so use in the article would be incorrect. No other ship of the RAN has carried the name or is likely to, so keeping this image serves no purpose. -- saberwyn 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's correct, then it fails the Fair Use test, as the image must relate directly to the page it appears on and be important. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2008 (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.

Crazy screenshot.jpg

[edit]
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 - replaced in the article now so this image is also orphaned. This image fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 00:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crazy screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fritz Saalfeld (notify | contribs).
  • I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Speedy deletion was declined. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This image certainly contributes to the understanding of the music video which is discussed in the article. Please explain why you think it doesn't. Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Music Videos" section of the article notes the use of Rorschach inkblot test type images in the video. At first pass, this seems to make the image legitimate to the article's use. It doesn't. The Rorschach inkblot test article is linked from this article, and an excellent example of a Rorschach inkblot test is in that article in the form of File:Rorschach1.jpg. That image is free, and while not a screenshot specific to the video, demonstrates the style. This makes this image replaceable by the free one. Further, the description in text is quite good, and describes how the video progresses from Rorschach inkblot image to Rorschach inkblot image. We don't need non-free content to convey this meaning. It's already conveyed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I don't think that the Rorschach inkblot test is what is important here, but rather how this is implemented in the video. And sorry, but the current image just doesn't do that. It also fails to indicate other parts of the video, such as the change in colour tone. — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 19:51, 21 December 2008 (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.

London Mansion House Corp of London.jpg

[edit]
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. I didn't realize this image could be placed at the Wikimedia Commons prior to voting for deletion so I withdraw the nomination. — Moe ε 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Mansion House Corp of London.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdforrester (notify | contribs).
  • I just checked the Wikimedia Commons for the counterpart template. I didn't realize they could be moved there. Had I known I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Knowing that I'll withdraw this. — Moe ε 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what's next, are we gonna classify CC-BY-SA images as non-free if there is a CC-BY photo of it? This is ridiculous. Also p.s. everything is copyrighted still EVEN IF IT IS FREELY LICENSED. ViperSnake151 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said anything about your first irrelavent comment about CC images. Next, the statement "everything is copyrighted even if it is freely licensed" is patently false. — Moe ε 14:39, 20 December 2008 (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.

SalingerTimemag.jpg

[edit]
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 argument that satisfies NFCC#8 (significance to reader's understanding). Simply illustrates the article's statement "On September 15, 1961, Time magazine devoted its cover to Salinger" - there is no reference other than this - Peripitus (Talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:SalingerTimemag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hobbesy3 (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright time magazine cover used as an eye candy in the article. The article mentions the magazine and list its contents, as to justify the image use, but it certainly can do without this illustration (fails WP:NFCC#8). Editors really seem to like Time Magazine covers. Damiens.rf 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an historic image that helps to communicate the public's fascination with Salinger (and the strange life choices he seemed to be making) at the time the issue of Time magazine in question was published. Killdevil (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NFCC#8. Irrelevant to the understanding of Salinger, his life or work. Appearing on Time magazine was hardly a defining moment in his life or career after all. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While appearing on the cover of Time magazine may not have been important to Salinger, using it to demonstrate his public status is a valid argument. Making the cover of Time is widely considered a kind of milestone in a person's public estimation. As a reader, seeing Salinger's face on a Time magazine helps me recognize just how sensational his intial impact on American literatiure was. Who, after all, gets their face on the cover of Time for writing short fiction anymore? Guest 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.161.17.210 (talk) [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.

SNUHQ.jpg

[edit]
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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:SNUHQ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clorian (notify | contribs).
  • Not used, also my interpretation of the license outlined on the image is that at the very least they do not allow derivatives of the images to be used commercialy, so not a free license release. Sherool (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (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.

Himmler Hitler.jpg

[edit]
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 argument that satisfies NFCC#8 (significance to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himmler Hitler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IZAK (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_December_17&oldid=1138515456"