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 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.
image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a copyrighted three-dimensional toy. Cannot be PD or any other free license. Therefore improperly licensed, and even if changed, still improper fairuse overuse. MBisanztalk02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Easily replaceable- there will be more series, or an image could be taken at the upcoming live shows (less than two months away, I believe). I'm not even sure an image is needed- it just seems to be a decorative "look- this is them on the show". It's not really illustrating anything particular. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image can not be replaced as photogrpahy is banned during the live shows, as they are recorded in a private TV Studio. It is not just a case of "here they are on the show", it illistrates Cheryl and Simon's role as a member of the judging panel. The fact that "there will be more series" is also irrelevant; as mentioned, the programme is recorded privately and nobody can just waltz in and take photos. Dalejenkins | 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's not enforced, because I have seen photos that people have taken at the live shows, and I have seen, on the show, contestants taking pictures of the judges/themselves with the judges during their audition. The image is not necessary- it may show the judges in their role as a judge, but an image of them in role as a judge isn't needed for a full understanding of the article. Simply stating that they act as a judge on the show, perhaps expanding to explain what that entails (if other sources believe it relevant) would be enough. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replaceable with text (NFCC 1). Suggested text: Cole and Cowell are X-Factor judges. Furthermore, this image does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC 8). CIreland (talk) 21:22, 18 September 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.
The original gold ingot picture used for this Image:Gold ingots.jpg was deleted from Commons due to having an unfree license. (The source website said it was ok to use their images, but it was ultimately determined this was not a free enough license[1]). -Nard18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo itself carries a copyright notice, which is inconsistent with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license used for the image. The image also carry a self-promoting name, unconnected with any articles the image is used in. No fair use reasons could justify using such an image in a Wikipedia article. -- Suntag☼20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image itself has my name on it because I took it. As a photographer it is my choice to release my photos wherever I want. I choose to allow several of my photos to be used in Wicki articles and they are in the scope of the CC license I choose. I don't think anyone needs to attempt to lecture me on my own photo use policies.Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the stamp on the image says copyright, so I hope you can understand the reasoning behind the nomination. If you took the image, you can probably eliminate this issue by just emailing the OTRS people and informing them of your decision to release the photograph there. After you do that, it might be good if you could upload a version of the photo that doesn't have the name-splash on it. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because I took the photo my name is on it. As with any photo I put out on the internet now it has my stamp/watermark. Also under the CCL I choose to use it says anyone can use the image as long as it remains intact and no other works are made from it and credit be given. Now before this turns into a huge issue I will defend myself here which I said I would not do. As a photographer I have put out images on the internet in the past. Images I put out for use of certain websites more than 10 years ago I see turning up all over the place without any credit and without any prior approval from myself. I have also found photos being used on albums that were never paid for by the artist. In this day and age anyone who puts their material out there "clean" can fully expect it to be ripped off. I choose to not do that, but under the CCL I can choose how I want it out there - and having it out there with a watermark is how I choose to do it and allow for anyone to use it as long as it falls under the CC guidelines that I choose. Likewise If I have been hired to shoot promo shots for people they were "works for hire" and while I can get photo credit they were intended to be freely used for promotion and if they turn up here (And some have) there is not a lot I can do if they do not give me photo credit. But it also does not break any copyright laws either. Beside I think the photo in question is only being "nominated" because someone is trying to have the whole page deleted as well for some personal reason that has nothing to do with me.Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Gold_ingots.jpg){kind=link}
