June 27
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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Davis-square-january-2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melikamp (notify | contribs).
- A copy was uploaded by the author to wikimedia. Mmm what happens next? I am new at this. melikamp (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2009 (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 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 without prejudice to undeleting/re-uploading with a licence compatible with the original work. At the moment it is a copyright violation as though the original was "all-rights-reserved". Free licences and public domain are rather different - Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio of File:Exclusive Economic Zones Nulles.png MBisanz talk 01:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a different image though, correct? Since the source is under a free license, isnt it okay to make reproductions? Corpx (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they can't be released into the public domain. Must be relicensed under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a copyvio at all, but an adaptation permitted under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is, because the GFDL and CC-BY-SA are both copyleft licenses. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the uploader agrees to relicense the image. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (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 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. Derivative work. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Greenlanternsymbol.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TriiipleThreat (notify | contribs).
- While this is a "simple" graphic, it is a logo used and protected by DC Comics. It is inappropriat for a "PD, I made this" file to be here, much less used in a userbox. J Greb (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I not sure what the policy is here, but I did create this representation and is not the work of any others. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2009 (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 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⚡ 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sunshine Anderson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lovejonesfly (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image of a living person, which could be replaced by a free alternative in Sunshine Anderson article. Rationale for Your Woman states that it is used for criticism and comment, but I don't see any mention of promo images in the article. Papa November (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo by Sunshine Anderson for Sunshine Anderson's first album "Your Woman". Promotional photo. Scanned by Lovejonesfly. Sunshine in 2001, photographed by photographer Sunshine Anderson. I talked about that in the previous edits of this page. A promotional photo of Sunshine Anderson from http://www.sunshineandersonmusic.com. The purpose to provide an image of content "in this case Sunshine Anderson". This photo is not replaceable. I scan this image and resized to fit Wikipedia standards.
- Rationale for fair use for Your Woman
- This image is used for the purposes of criticism and comment on the album Your Woman.
- According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976: "The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment,...scholarship...is not an infringement of copyright." [1]
- The image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and it is used for non-profit purposes. These two factors are noted as relevant by the Act.
- No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information in a historical context.
- The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to promote the recording artists or their work in any way.
- The image's inclusion in the article is important because it supports the subject of and is discussed in the text.
- The image is being used for informational purposes only.
- The material has previously been published in numerous sources, with higher resolution images available elsewhere.
Lovejonesfly (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Image is not very irreplaceable and could be replaced with a free one. Corpx (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A rational fair use was provided, there for it is irreplaceable. Lovejonesfly (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, that does not follow. Someone could easily take a photo of Anderson and release it under a free license. The image is therefore readily replaceable. Papa November (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well duh, I said I scanned it from a mini poster. Lovejonesfly (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Papa November (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you don't see the "relevance". It was uploaded under "promotional photo". The "Rationale for fair use for Your Woman" was given and "Non-free promotional" license used. The fact is your tagging the images not clean-up Wikipedia, but because you want to, and your not making sense to the uploader to give a "rational for fair use" if you were going to delete the image anyway! I really don't see the point in going through all that trouble just so it can be deleted now. There's no point in deleting it. Lovejonesfly (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Papa November (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well duh, I said I scanned it from a mini poster. Lovejonesfly (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, that does not follow. Someone could easily take a photo of Anderson and release it under a free license. The image is therefore readily replaceable. Papa November (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete replacable image of a living person and it is being used as decoration in Your Woman (Sunshine Anderson album) without any commentary or relevance to album. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are you even commenting when you don't know anything about this. It was a promotional photo from Sunshine Anderson's Your Woman Booklet. I bought the photo as a mini-poster which I scanned. So ya, it shows how much you know, your "delete comment" was a little on the stupid side. Lovejonesfly (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lovejonesfly, please remember to remain civil. Calling something stupid—be it a person or their comments—may only inflame situations and are better left unsaid. — Σxplicit 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even though the image was removed from Sunshine Anderson, it is still used in Your Woman (Sunshine Anderson album), but does not comply with WP:NFCC#8 as it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. — Σxplicit 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to see that I was calling him stupid but his edit. And I removed the picture from the main article. It was not upload to comply with "WP:NFCC#8 as it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.", if you've read the image's purpose it says, 'The purpose to provide an image of content "in this case Sunshine Anderson".' Lovejonesfly (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (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 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⚡ 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not found at page given as source, highly unlikely to be a "screenshot of a [...] television program or station ID." Looks like the same deleted file File:Amalia.jpg. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-27t13:32z 13:32, 27 June 2009 (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 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⚡ 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:OwensChris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Romanich (notify | contribs).
- File:Zabirchenko.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Rodrigez Andres.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Andrykaites.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Milutin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Zhidrunas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- Uploader puts GNU FDL on the pics, but there is a copyright at the bottom of the player roster from the source Corpx (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (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.