Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22

[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:

Image:A&C-youth-thong.jpg

[edit]
Image:A&C-youth-thong.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VigilancePrime (notify | contribs).
  • Also: Image:Etam-youth-thong.jpg (same uploader)
  • These are two non-free images of clothing that has since been discontinued by the manufacturer. They're being used to illustrate the "Controversy" section of Thong (clothing). User:Quadell contends that the images are replaceable by free ones per WP:NFCC#1; the uploader believes that this would be unreasonably difficult. I am bringing this here for wider consensus. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think they are good images, well used in commentary for the associated article. The youngish designs and colors shown by the catalog images justifies their inclusion. In fact, I feel more comfortable using the original controversial source published by the manufacturer than someone's GFDL photograph of a young girl's knickers. (ew). --Knulclunk 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above, I think these images should be deleted per NFCC#1. I might prefer a catalog image to a GFDL pic of underwear, but I can't see any rational way to claim the image is non-replaceable. Also, the previous debate VP references was that the images didn't have rationales. Rationales were added, which is nice. . . but the images are still replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kn- was referring to this part of the policy: Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. Yes, "someone's GFDL photograph of a young girl's knickers" may be possible, but would not be "of acceptable quality." At least, I think that's what the intent was. I do realize that, no matter what the ultimate view is, this is as much on the borderline as is possible. I prefer to err on the side of keep (of course). :-) VigilancePrime 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an image of "a young girl's knickers" be free content? Surely, the design is copyright, so a useful image of it would be subject to the same sort of copyright as a scan of a magazine cover (it would, in essence be a 2-D representation of it). Sure, if you used it in an "artsy" shot of a model wearing it you might get past the copyright issue, but, as Knulclunk said: eww! So keep on the basis that it is not replaceable by a free image. 129.15.162.207 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underwear could be patented as a "useful work", but I doubt any court would hold that commercial underwear design is covered by copyright as an "artistic work". – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The catalog publication is as much a part of the controversy as the clothing itself. A photograph of the clothing alone is not a "free equivalent", as the item, photographed, published and marketed to children as shown here is part of the story. The catalog image is more appropriate. --Knulclunk 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, how much can this discussion (meaning the consensus of KEEPability) extrapolate to these other images? Image:Cellphone-thong.gif, Image:Male-thong-front1.jpg, Image:Swimwear-thong-womens-1.jpg, Image:Swimwear-thong-mens-1.jpg, and Image:Thong-lace-white.jpg? All of them are similar in their catalog-like product-offering way, and all of these were tagged immediately following the contesting of the two images listed here (retaliatory?) with basically the same reason. I am wondering what need be done, if anything, to prevent them from being deleted for the same reason that was originally given for deletion of these two, or is there a general consensus that, even though the products are same or similar and deletion requests are identical or similar, they would not meet the same keep criteria? I appreciate the insights (and the rational support of the original two images). VigilancePrime 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the keep criteria is the same. All the other tagged examples could be replaced with free images. --Knulclunk 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you need to post to Talk:Jimmy_Wales and tell him what you think of policy. That's where all this coming from (mostly). Not whether fairuse or not applies. You have my permission to vent. -Nodekeeper 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Violates non-free content criteria policy #1. A free equivalent could be created, whether it is preferred or not over the non-free image. The utilitarian aspect of the underwear makes the underwear itself non-copyrightable. -Nv8200p talk 17:46, 30 August 2007 (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:

Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png

[edit]
Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sipefree (notify | contribs).
  • This image was previously nominated for deletion, and there were a few comments. Here is the previous nom. I deleted the image, but I was then notified that several people didn't know about the deletion nom, since {{ifdc}} wasn't used, only the original uploader (and not the most recent modifier) was notified, etc. So I've restored and relisted it, hoping to get more comments. Note that this is a map drawn by a Wikipedian, but based on the underlying information that is copyrighted by the game manufacturer. Does this map pass all of NFCC? Would it be better or worse to use a (more cluttered) in-game map, such as [1], [2], or [3]?- – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems to meet all the NFCC, from what I can tell. It was mis-tagged a while ago but I've fixed that. I personally like this version better than the "official" versions since it's less busy and cluttered. Also, when this is all over, would it be possible to rename the image somehow? It's currently called "Ffvii" but it actually depicts the world map of FFVIII. Axem Titanium 19:00, 22 Augustinal 2007 (UTC)

Image kept. The original reason to delete was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether the image is used or not should be determined on the article talk page. -Nv8200p talk 18:32, 30 August 2007 (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:

Image:Lara_Croft_Face_magazine_cover.png

[edit]
Image:Lara_Croft_Face_magazine_cover.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Steerpike (notify | contribs).
The text doesn't mention *this* magazine specifically but it does say: "Aside from game appearances, Lara was featured on covers of magazines, in comic books and movies. The amount of media coverage Lara received at the time was previously unheard of, with many magazines even outside the video game industry printing articles on he"
The image is important to illustrate the impact Lara Croft had on the media. Fair use is justified here I think. Besides, the magazine has gone out of print. --Steerpike 07:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: how can anyone not understand Aside from game appearances, Lara was featured on covers of magazines, without a picture? Anrie 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This illustrates Lara Croft in media, culture, and is the only such image in the article. Slearly significant. Perhaps this isn't the best, but it is sufficient. I could see a Newsweek or Wired Magazine cover supplanting it if there was one, but this is perfectly justifiable in and of itself. VigilancePrime 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. #8 - Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. In this instance, the image is used as a representation to support the cultural significance and widespread-ness of the game and character. This clearly increases readers' understanding of the topic and the section and demonstrates the point, adding credibility to the section. Text alone has far less credibility than showing the case in point. This is relevant and permissable under a reasonable person test of this policy. VigilancePrime 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make some valid points, but note counter-example #7: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover [is unacceptable]. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply; see the Demi Moore article." This looks to me like a magazine cover illustrating the article on the person (character) whose photo is on the cover, where the cover itself is not notable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note - and how could I forget to mention this - that the Tomb Raider article references much of its information from the article in the depicted magazine. It's not just a picture from a random magazine that had Lara Croft on the cover. --Steerpike 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was an argument for fair use, than articles like William Shakespeare would be completely drowned under all the cover shots. Anrie 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would be just as good without this image. Nonfree images used just to prove a point are replaceable by references in the text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article to describe the significance of Croft's appearance on this magazine cover. Illustrating the cover is essential to a reader's understanding of how this video character was presented in the context of a widely distributed, general interest magazine's cover.—DCGeist 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted per non-free content criteria #8. Image is not siginificant to article. The text that was added to the article to give the image significance was just a statement of fact and not critical commentary. The words "The Lara Croft character was prominently featured in the popular media outside the realm of video gaming, for instance on the cover of cutting-edge pop culture magazine The Face in June 1997" do not require an image to go along with them to understand them. The image is nice, but only decorative. -Nv8200p talk 18:01, 30 August 2007 (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:

Image:Seagate 160 GB hard drive box.jpg

[edit]
Image:Seagate 160 GB hard drive box.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Omegatron (notify | contribs).

These four nonfree images are included in one article, Binary prefix, but they do not contribute to the article in a way that could not be easily replaced by text. Therefore, per our nonfree use restrictions, their use on the article is inappropriate. As the speedy deletion was contested, an IFD discussion seems appropriate.

Their only purpose is to show how the size of a drive was displayed on product packaging and in Windows XP dialogs. This can be conveyed perfectly well by text: the Seagate box says 160 GB for 160 x 10^9 bytes, but all three Windows XP dialogs use binary notation instead. The previous sentence illustrates exactly how easy it is to replace these images by text.

In addition to all four images being replaceable by text, including four nonfree images on this page violates the "minimal use" provision of WP:NFCC#3. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Nominator agrees that there is no legal problem with use of these images. Fair use rationale is on individual image pages; they meet US fair use law restrictions and the restrictions set by Microsoft for use of screenshots, so the only potential issue is our own additional non-free content restrictions. But these images are needed to demonstrate the discrepancy between systems of measurement used in different contexts. A sentence of text is certainly not an adequate replacement. (Also, the different screenshots of Windows programs do not show the same thing. The photo and two screenshots illustrate the difference between reported sizes in different programs; "152625 MB" vs "149.05 GB" vs "160 GB" for the same physical drive. The other shows the partition size dialog, which will be more familiar to readers.) — Omegatron 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restrictions on nonfree images are not fundamentally about legal concerns, but about our desire to create an encyclopedia that is as free as possible. I apologize for misreading the images; you explained the difference to me very well using text alone. I can't see what these images provide that a simple description would not - the images have no artistic or historical importance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. If you describe the situation in text (as several users have helpfully done, above), then the images effective demonstrate the situation, but they don't provide any additional encyclopedic information. Therefore they fail NFCC #8, and should be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The images collectively far more accurately communicate the potential problem than mere text therefore do provide substantive and additional encyclopedic information and therefore are to be included in accordance with NFCC #8. Tom94022 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly what encyclopedic information related to the subject of the article do these images convey? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three images, so to speak, are worth three thousand words :-). The visual impact of seeing the actual different values displayed as the capacity of the same drive, particularly two values from one OS, is IMO, a superior and very relevant way of communicating the potential for consumer confusion caused by Binary Prefixes. Since an encyclopedia is about "convey[ing] the most relevant accumulated knowledge" we should use this most relevant presentation. BTW, if someone wanted to make a collage of the 3 images, explicitly highlighting the 3 different values that would be even more relevant, but it would also be a derivative work and lead us here again. Tom94022 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that it's possible just to say in text what the dialogs say. The first says XXX, the second says YYY, etc. Actually seeing the image of the dialog doesn't actually contribute more knowledge. In fact, it is harder to interpret the dialog than to interpret a focused statement in text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with all of the above. The thing is however you put it, unless you don't have a picture, which shows thing side-by-side as a comparison or something one never really understands. I would really hate it if it goes simply due to some technicality that somebody thinks is wrong. Also don't agree with the comment that a free open-source solution would be better. They tell what is wrong. If you really want to take up that technicality then one should delete http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Photoshop all the photos in there for everything in the interface which is shown by pics. can be shown text. Also dunno if they are non-free or not. The thing is for any wiki or any sense of information we need both. The same goes for hard disk packaging photographs, they are doing something wrong otherwise there wouldn't be any class-action suits on the matter for sure. [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I dunno if I'm just too tired or what, but surely we could simply create free screenshots under Linux or under Windows XP using an open source application to show free disk space, to replace the non-free Windows XP based images. The hard drive box could quite easily be replaced by a faux image showing similar detail but without the copyright problems. Nick 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The beauty of these images is that they show the actual two different values displayed by the OS most likely to have caused serious consumer confusion (at least if measured by installed base); for example, I doubt if there is any consumer confusion amongst Linux users. So, I suggest such a display would be less relevant. Tom94022 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not reason to bend the freedom of Wikipedia. Such niceties come way after the concern for creating a Free encyclopedia. Do as Nick says and get rid of the non-free images. Rama 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I cannot see any possible copyright problems with any of the nominated images. If this is not covered by "fair use", then what is? These images nicely illustrate that Microsoft uses the SI prefixes "mega" and "giga" incorrectly in their software and how this might have caused harddisk-customer confusion in the past. The only concern that I could understand here would be about product placement. Markus Kuhn 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't take my word for it. Read this from Godwin. As an aside, this is two areas where I see policies failing. One is wikilawyering, and another is making rules that are more restrictive that they need to be. I will notify uploader. -Nodekeeper 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Mike Godwin gives us an opinion that these can be relicensed as free images, that would of course resolve the issue. Lacking that, our current practice is to regard them as nonfree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What am I missing here? User:Omegatron took the pictures, he can give it any license he wants. It's unfortunate that he chose the wrong one in the first place. -Nodekeeper 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this might be true, but tagged the image conservatively. Apparently this was a bad decision. I've now changed the licensing on that image. — Omegatron 17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you might be saying that if I take a picture of a nonfree picture, I can then release my copy as a free image? That can't be right. So I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Otherwise, our "nonfree screenshot" tag wouldn't exist, since the person releasing the screenshot could just use a free license. I don't understand what you are saying. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How well do you understand copyright law and derivative works? It's not as simple as you seem to think. — Omegatron 17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to fully understand copyright law (and it's our lawyer's job to give legal advice, not mine). I do need to understand the current practices of this site when implementing those practices. Although practice and policy can change, screenshots of nonfree copyrighted software, or photographs of copyrighted items whose purpose is exactly to illustrate those items, are classified as "nonfree" under the current system. If the system changes so that they are considered free, I'll be glad to follow the new policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the images are confusing if you don't understand what you are looking at. They presume that the reader knows what a dialog box is and what it means. Text is more accessible, and can explain the situation better. At the moment, the images are not well integrated into the text, and they create more confusion. It would not be difficult to improve the writing in this article to the stage where the pictures were not needed. At the moment, the pictures are supporting poorly written text, when pictures should only be needed if well-written text cannot describe the text. Replace the images with text. Carcharoth 00:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept. I believe these images have significance in this article or at least I have a reasonable doubt. Guessing by any other Admins failure to act, they have the same doubts. There is no consensus and since I have my doubts, I will not delete. Each image presents the issue in a different and relevant manner, so I again have doubts that the number of non-free images for this size article is too many. -Nv8200p talk 21:19, 9 September 2007 (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.

Image:Backpacktr4teen.jpg

[edit]
Image:Backpacktr4teen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joxernolan (notify | contribs).

Image:Greatest_Hits_My_Prerogative_Limited_Edition.jpg

[edit]
Image:Greatest_Hits_My_Prerogative_Limited_Edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pekaje (notify | contribs).

Image:Blog27lol.JPG

[edit]
Image:Blog27lol.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pekaje (notify | contribs).
Image deleted. Alternate cover is not significant to article. Significant differences are not discussed. -Nv8200p talk 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lolreelese.JPG

[edit]
Image:Lolreelese.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MarGru (notify | contribs).
Image deleted. Alternate cover is not significant to article. Significant differences are not discussed. -Nv8200p talk 17:36, 30 August 2007 (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.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Mickey Mouse.jpg

[edit]
Image:Mickey Mouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhindle The Red (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: the image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). The image is not illustrating anything of the section Pejorative use of Mickey's name, it is only used for decoration. Secundary reasons: no fair use rationale, no source information, no author information. Ilse@ 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak delete - This image clearly falls under the "movie poster" type of fair-use, and only needs that description to be added in text (as tags aren't deemed sufficient by most people...makes me wonder why we even have them then...). The image is used in the article 1930, but indicated for the MM comic strip, for which this isn't properly illustrative. It would have a legitimate home on other pages or other areas, though. If it could be better placed, it would be a keep. VigilancePrime 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not true that any poster with a fair use tag can be freely used in Wikipedia regardless of its passing the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Furthermore, the intention of Wikipedia is being a free encyclopedia, not finding ways non-free images don't have to be deleted. – Ilse@ 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per multiple actions taken Image removed from inappropriate placement in 1930 article. Article now appears appropriately in Mickey Mouse article. Text there revised and expanded to treat character's early Technicolor history, as illustrated by image. In addition, all evidence indicates that image is public domain. Rationale on image page written to reflect this fact.—DCGeist 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My claim on the lack of significance for the readers' understanding of the topic is still true for the Mickey Mouse article (fails WP:NFCC #8), unless, for instance, that article would critically discuss marketing as mentioned in the fair use rationale ("illustrates (...) how his films during the era were marketed"). I don't understand why DCGeist changed the image to a higher resolution version (fails WP:NFCC #3); I also think the colours are worse than of the first version. – Ilse@ 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification As noted, image is actually PD, so NFCC arguments are irrelevant. Even if NFCC arguments were relevant, the poster clearly gives us the important information of how Mickey looked and was presented during his early days in Technicolor. Finally, as the information I provided on the image page and its summary indicate, I uploaded a low-res version (the significant factor is the file size--40% less than the previous version) whose color palette--whatever our personal preferences--appears to be truer to the original.—DCGeist 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Image in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 17:31, 30 August 2007 (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.

Image:MMCH.jpg

[edit]
Image:MMCH.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan Holloway (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: the image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). The image is only used for decoration of the article Mickey Mouse, there is no critical discussion of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Secundary reasons: no source information, no author information. Ilse@ 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source is specifically unlisted and the image page shows that no articles link to/use this image. Unnecessary. VigilancePrime 15:33, 22 August 2007 (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.

Image:Flight dynamics.jpg

[edit]
Image:Flight dynamics.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZeroOne (notify | contribs).

The local copy is now deleted, Commons duplicate is showing through at Image:Flight dynamics.jpg. In the future, please use {{db-author}}. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:07, 22 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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:

Image:Akmanthor.jpg

[edit]
Image:Akmanthor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 80jimmylouie (notify | contribs).
Image kept. Looks legit. -Nv8200p talk 17:21, 30 August 2007 (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.

Image:Mtos.jpg

[edit]
Image:Mtos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kramer81887 (notify | contribs).

Image:Mtos2.jpg

[edit]
Image:Mtos2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kramer81887 (notify | contribs).
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:

Image:Jamaica_Pond_1924.jpg

[edit]
Image:Jamaica_Pond_1924.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bluemanboston (notify | contribs).
Actually, if it lacks a copyright notice then it's PD. Notices were required at the time. I wonder if we could take the source website's word for it? Their business is selling reproductions of these maps, which they could not do if there was an existing copyright on them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that it's virtually certain the copyright was not renewed, assuming it existed in the first place. (There was no reason to secure one at the time. There were no easy methods to reproduce them. The only one that would yield a map of equivalent quality would be just as much work as producing one from scratch.) This genre of map was used as a reference for infrastructure, property ownership, building heights, etc. They became obsolete after a few years, which is why their users received them by subscription. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image comes from an atlas. Atlases, like all books, were usually copyrighted back then. If the book was still in print later, the copyright certainly would have been renewed. If it was out-of-print by the time renewal was due, then the publisher might not have bothered to renew the copyright, but that's difficult to determine. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if the source said the image was PD, then I would advocate taking their word for it. But if it's copyrighted, they could be relicensing it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sanborn made similar maps, and the brand is now owned by another company. That company sells copies, and claims exclusive rights as I recall.

http://www.sanborn.com/products/fire_insurance_maps.asp I assume the same would be the case here. These books were not used and thrown away, like catalogs. The following site has digital pictures taken at a library of Sanborn maps http://www.jphs.org/sources-archive/ Notice that they only go up to 1914 - nothing after 1923. I assume that this is because of the 1923 rule. MarkinBoston 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC) There are several ways to determine if the copyright is still active. The simplest would be to contact Wardmaps.com and ask about this particular material. Otherwise, if there's information on the company responsible for this map, it would be possible to check if they are still in business or whether their copyright was transferred to another company. Some libraries also carry the Catalog of Copyright Entries, which could have information on registered copyright. The problem is that without any verification, this image is not free as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. A free alternative could be created from public domain satellite photography / DOT maps. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find out about the publisher. Failing that, I'll email the company and see what they have to say about rights to their maps. (They may not be too pleased at the prospect of using one of their map scans here, legal or not, so I'll try to be cagey.)
A side note: while looking for info on G. W. Bromley & Co. I ran across this Google answer. It's almost certainly the owner of the company building up his map collection for starting his business. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted as copyright violation. Can be restored if PD status is established. -Nv8200p talk 17:14, 30 August 2007 (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:

Image:Michel-foucault.jpg

[edit]
Image:Michel-foucault.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xiaopo (notify | contribs).

Image deleted. Use of the image violates non-free content criteria policy, item 2. Using Corbis, Getty, etc. images is generally accepted by editors to be likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. -Nv8200p talk 17:05, 30 August 2007 (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:

Image:Rand_donahue.jpg

[edit]
Image:Rand_donahue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FranksValli (notify | contribs).
  • Keep The image is valuable (a) because it illustrates a significant national media appearance by the article's notable subject, Ayn Rand, as described in the image caption and (b) it provides valuable information on how this notable figure chose to present herself while making an important public appearance. It is the only image in the article that illustrates how she presented herself while appearing in public, a crucial matter for a significant public figure like Rand.—DCGeist 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Screenshot is not being used for critical commentary as required. The reasons given for the image being valuable are opinions of the editor not supported by references. There is no source (copyright holder)or fair use rationale. -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 29 August 2007 (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.

Image:Chimay-rouge-blan.jpg

[edit]
Image:Chimay-rouge-blan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AscendedAnathema (notify | contribs).

Image:Chimay3.jpg

[edit]
Image:Chimay3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AscendedAnathema (notify | contribs).

Image:Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG

[edit]
Image:Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ptkfgs (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_22&oldid=1039888187"