Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 7

Unnecessary use of unfree image. The image adds no new info to the article. Also, is tagged as promotional but the source sites terms of use clearly discourages the displaying of any of its images outside of the site.- Abu badali ^(talk) 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic and unfree image. --Ciao 90 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Wikipedia is not image repository or a gaming magazine. --Ragnarok Addict 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not an image repository or a gaming magazine, it is an encyclopaedia, and this image adds significantly to the article. Hawker Typhoon 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this does not contribute in any way to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject; it is not obvious to me that this should be in the article even if it was freely licensed. Not at all what we make Wikipedia:Fair use claims for; there is nothing encyclopedic to say about this image whatsoever. Perhaps speediable under G12 or I7 Jkelly 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated this at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV page but User:Yeanold_Viskersenn that uploaded the image seems to unable to discuss and understand about Fair use and only is revert.. seems to be a bit of pushing by him because he crazy revert the article and uploaded the image itself. --Ciao 90 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rod Laver 2.jpg[edit]

CV Image from Associated press, tagged as {{Historicphoto}}, but only being used to illustrate the article on the person depicted on the image. The image is not historic. The article doesn't discuss it.- Abu badali ^(talk) 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Josefandfamily.JPG[edit]

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

Orphaned — Dondiasco 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikiiii.JPG[edit]

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

Orphaned — Dondiasco 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ariselogo.gif[edit]

Image:Ariselogo.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Asics (notify | contribs).

obsolete - a version has been uploaded in a better format, image:ariselogo.jpg Speedy delete required — Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GenVietingnhoff.jpg[edit]

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

the given reason for PD is simply wrong: “This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.” The image is from 1940 or 1941. The cited text from German copyright law doesn’t apply here, since this image is no Lichtbild (article 72 UrhG) but a Lichtbildwerk (article 64 UrhG, so the author has to be dead for 70 years. This is simply impossible. Polarlys 12:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006_-_Chorinho_e_chorao_-_50_x_40.jpg[edit]

Image:2006_-_Chorinho_e_chorao_-_50_x_40.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Albelo (notify | contribs).

Orphaned likely Copyright violation -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Si cov 010606 300.jpg[edit]

Image:Si cov 010606 300.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johntex (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary magazine cover. The articles it is used in mention the magazine issue, but the cover itself is not relevant. "Critical discussion" about the cover itself is never more than a description of it, saying the cover "featured Vince Young shouting in triumph amidst a storm of multi-colored confetti.", which I don't think counts as relevant encyclopedic critical commentary. Yes, there are other magazine cover abuses in those articles...- Abu badali ^(talk) 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This magazine cover (and the others) are specifically discussed at length in the articles where they appear. Abu may be well meaning but over-zealous in his efforts. He might also carry a grudge against me; Possibly becuase I have commented on his RFC. At this RFC Abu thumbs his nose at the community by not even replying to a valid, certified RFC. Johntex\^talk 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with Johntex. --Wordbuilder 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could some of you guys point me to where is this magazine cover "discussed at length"? As I said, "discussion" about the cover is never more than "the cover featured Vince Young shouting in triumph amidst a storm of multi-colored confetti.". And a description of a magazine issue's contents (considering they are really necessary in the articles) doesn't need to be illustrated by an unfree image of the cover. See Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png for an example of (unfree) magazine covers relevant enough to deserve discussion on an article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still highly interested in hearing how is this magazine cover "discussed at length" in the article. Your "keep" arguments are based on this premise, but I've presented evidence that this is not the case in the nomination itself. I ask the closing admin to (as they always correctly do) judge the argument's merits instead of counting votes. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask the closing administrator to view Abu's RfC concerning his duplicitous conduct and his hounding of any editor who has disagreed with him in the past. This could easily be seen as a bad faith nomination. Johntex\^talk 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description reads:

Sports Illustrated held up their regular weekly edition to await the results of the Rose Bowl. They finally went to press with a cover showing Young diving into the end zone with the label "Superman" (pictured). Analysis inside the issue gives Vince Young a large part of the credit for the win. They also printed a special commemorative issue (also pictured) in the state of Texas with Vince Young on the cover, shouting in triumph amidst a storm of multi-colored confetti after winning the game. Features in the special edition included a story on Vince Young's Glory Days by author Tim Layden, as well as a story dissecting How the Rose Bowl was won by Austin Murphy. The issue was on sale alongside the regular edition of the magazine.

This seams more than sufficient to cover the use of the image. No text-only description can adequately portray the impression of the actual image and no free alternative is available or possible when discussing a published magazine cover such as this. Appropriate footnotes are also given. Johntex\^talk 07:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, the image is not used just to represent the player or the team, it is used in a discussion of the historical event of the team achieving its first national title in 35 years. The above paragraph is just one part of the overall discussion of the effects of this in the media, etc. Johntex\^talk 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above text mostly discusses the magazine's contents and it's publication, but not it's cover. The only part mentioning the cover is "...with Vince Young on the cover, shouting in triumph amidst a storm of multi-colored confetti after winning the game.". (The initial phrase "...showing Young diving into the end zone with the label "Superman"" refers to another image.)

We don't need to use an unfree image to illustrate a text about a magazine's contents (supposing we need the text about a magazine's contents). And the text about the magazine's cover, as it's no more than a trivial description, is unnecessary. As I mentioned before, see Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png for an example of an unfree magazine cover relevant enough to deserve being really discussed.

And as a side note, the article should point to secondary sources mentioning this magazine issue's importance, otherwise the whole paragraphs is original research. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can't infer the importance of a given magazine issue. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Words adequately describe the cover and the cover image itself was not newsworthy. -Nv8200p talk 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Internet Explorer 3.03.png[edit]

Image:Internet Explorer 3.03.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by 51r V4nd4I0t (notify | contribs).

Not screenshot of Internet Explorer (Originally it was. Apparently it was deleted earlier.)- minghong 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cc3-tiberiumzones.jpg[edit]

Image:Cc3-tiberiumzones.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Scumbag (notify | contribs).

Looks like pure speculation, there are currently no reliable sources for the information presented on the map. — Stealthbg 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Additionally, it's hopelessly in-universe information, of little use to a general-purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful for the purpose of quickly allowing the reader to identify which zones are contaminated and which aren't in C&C3. It's based on OFFICIAL RELEASED videos included in the C&C3 demo. Also, the In-Universe information argument is complete BS, as the same can be attributed to pretty much all images, ranging from Stormtrooper images to Harry Potter film screenshots, because they are "hopelessly in-universe information, of little use to a general-purpose encyclopedia." --Mikael GRizzly (too lazy to log-in)
It's a reproduction of a fictional map (not PD), and it isn't supporting any text sourced to reliable, independent sources, so it fails for a fair-use rationale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill Johnston and Bill Tilden.jpg[edit]

Image:Bill Johnston and Bill Tilden.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hayford Peirce (notify | contribs).

Tagged as {{HistoricPhoto}}, but hardly a notable image.

Image:1925 Davis Cup Team.jpg[edit]

Image:1925 Davis Cup Team.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hayford Peirce (notify | contribs).

CV. According to the uploader, image is from copyrighted by the news agency United Press International (UPI). It's tagged as {{HistoricPhoto}}, but the image itself is not notable. It's being used to illustrate the article on the person depicted- Abu badali ^(talk) 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kalashg.jpg[edit]

Image:Kalashg.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sean WI (notify | contribs).

this file is not from de.wikipedia.org, since de.wikipedia.org declares that this images is from en.wikipedia.org by user Aarandir But there is no author given here. — Polarlys 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is from corbis.com: http://pro.corbis.com/popup/Enlargement.aspx?mediauids={999371d8-b925-43b4-9e58-89b379645cf7}%7C{ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff}&qsPageNo=1&fdid=&Area=Search&TotalCount=85&CurrentPos=38&WinID={999371d8-b925-43b4-9e58-89b379645cf7} and must be deleted. RedAndr 05:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Clearly a violation --Wordbuilder 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete *sigh* yeah, I can't read German and I was under the impression that its author was releasing it. It should be deleted. --Sean WI 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill Tilden Hitting a Backhand.jpg[edit]

Image:Bill Tilden Hitting a Backhand.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hayford Peirce (notify | contribs).

Tagged as {{HistoricPhoto}}, but hardly a notable image- Abu badali ^(talk) 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Joe-pa-sports-illustrated-2005-cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Joe-pa-sports-illustrated-2005-cover.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by J. Nguyen (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary magazine cover. The magazine issue is barely mentioned in the article "...Paterno was the first college coach named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated magazine" (this sentence and no other), and the cover itself is not relevant at all.- Abu badali ^(talk) 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maddox3.jpg[edit]

Image:Maddox3.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sloan21 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. The fair use rationale is completely incorrect. There is absolutely no indication that this is a publicity photo or something from a press kit meant for distribution; rather, the sources given show that it is from the BBC - a news agency. Photos from news agencies (unless the photo is iconic in its own right - and this one isn't) are not to be used, and fair use cannot be claimed. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #5 for more details regarding news agency photos. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JolieField.jpg[edit]

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

Copyright violation. No indication this is a press photograph. The source provided solely states that the image is © UNHCR/R.Ek, and that all rights are reserved. The uploader has made no claim to the contrary. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The description page has a fair use claim, so it's not like the copyrighted status is being hidden. The event illustrated is discussed at some length in the article. Gimmetrow 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may have misstated the problem earlier. The problem is that the fair use claim is based on the fact that this is supposedly a promotional photograph. I tend to nod and go on when I see a claim to an image being promotional, but the source provided obviously shows absolutely no indication that it actually is a promo photo. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image is specifically provided by UNHCR to illustrate the work of the UN agency and its Goodwill ambassador. How is that not a promotional photograph? Of course there is no commercial intention - but do you have to sell something to do promotion? -- EnemyOfTheState 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kept image. Changed tag to fairusein|Angelina Jolie -Nv8200p talk 02:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bio jones.jpg[edit]

Image:Bio jones.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tigermichal (notify | contribs).

Tagged as a {{Promotional}} image, but its source site (upn.com, a redirect to cwtv.com) is not a source for promotional material. The images on this site are part of the site's value, and not to be used by other sites. Their terms of service states "Using any Material on any other web site or networked computer environment is prohibited. ". A valid fair use claim is unlikely, since we use of the image is competitive with the copyright holder's use (i.e., if you can see cool pictures of a given TV series on Wikipedia, you don't need to go to cwtv.com to see them) - Abu badali ^(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description page notes that this has been proposed for deletion and kept less than 2 weeks ago. It claims to illustrate the character, not the actress, and so it not replaceable except with similar copyrighted images. I have some difficulty seeing this image as competitive with a TV series. Gimmetrow 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to have misunderstood my comments. First, this IFD has nothing to do with repleceability. Second, I didn't say that this image was "competitive with a TV serie". This image is not a part of a TV series (as an screenshot would be). It's part of a Website about TV series. And our use of this image on Wikipedia's website is competition. It was claimed that this images was releasesdfor being used by such websites (that's what the {{promotional}} tag claims), but this is not correct, as can be seen by the source site's terms of service. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still have difficulty seeing the presence of this low resolution image as competing with another website about the TV series. The text added at the recent rfu resolution includes the assertion: "Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder." This seems rather low quality to be a promotional photo, but I see this was originally tagged as simply copyrighted fair use when uploaded over a year ago. Gimmetrow 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As long as the resolution is good enough to allow the image to be used to illustrate the character, it's competing with the copyright holder's website. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg[edit]

Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Imoeng (notify | contribs).

Photos from news agencies (here, the source given is the BBC) are not to be used (unless the photo is iconic in its own right - and this one isn't), and fair use cannot be claimed. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #5 for more details regarding news agency photos. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want. I've had enough with this copyright crap. Imo eng 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not a random picture of a personality (now THAT is an image that could easily go), or well known building. It's a unique event, and as such, almost certainly falls under criterion 1: It's very unlikely a free image can be located to illustrate this.Circeus 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent real life image, and it should'nt be deleted.

- Agreed, I also Oppose--NPswimdude500 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, it's unlikely that a free image could be obtained. But it is a press photo. Our policies explicitly prohibit use of press photos on Wikipedia, as the photo itself is not iconic in any way. Even fair use itself, off of Wikipedia, might not be able to be claimed, as press photos are certainly small images for profit. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, read the policy for it's spirit, not it's letter. It's intended for Stuff like random people, places or things. We have a number of cases were no images could reasonably be produced, and this is clearly such a case.Circeus 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The policy makes very clear that there are certainly exceptions to the use of press photos, but namely, iconic photos, such as Mary Ann Vecchio at Kent State, the execution of the Viet Cong captain in '68, and the like. This is not one of those exceptions — it's competition for what is obviously a for-profit photo. This IFD was never about replaceability. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus, you're very mistaken about how the policy works. For an unfree image to be usable on Wikipedia, it must be ok with each of the 10 itens in the policy (that's why it's called a criteria). There's no such thing as "it falls under criterion 1...". The image should be ok with all of them. This image violates criterion 2, and should be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly, Abu Badali, what makes this picture fails criterion #2 of WP:FAIR? I don't get it. There is no such thing that the copyright holder cannot make money because this picture is uploaded in Wikipedia. The image itself is in very low resolution and it is a case that cannot be reproduced anymore. — Indon (reply) — 08:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's a press photo. This is exactly how it's reproduced in online news agencies. 15:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  - This image has a watermark (bottom right) from AP (news agenvy Associated Press), and it is being used by BBC. BBC payed AP for the right to use this image. AP makes money from people paying for using their images. If you use one of their images for free, they're loosing money (Q.E.D.). As a rule of thumb, don't use image from sources that make a living out of selling images. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, so let's find other image to replace it while complying WP:FAIR. — Indon (reply) — 08:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, so this should be deleted, since it does belong to another company, and used without permission. Delete. JZX100 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    - If this photo is to be deleted, another suitable replacement must be found immediately as this is a unique event which should be published in pictures and words. This will help readers see understand what damage accidents like these cause. User steeza11 21:08, 9 March 2007 (AWDST)
Oppose like users above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a similar photo from a different angle on Indahnesia.com, without any watermark [1]
  - Image kept. The use of the image adds greatly to the article to understand the extent of the damage to aircraft and how lucky people were to be able to walk away. Our policies do not explicitly prohibit the use of press photos. In this case, the photo itself is newsworthy, is used in a related article and no free alternative exists. Use of this low resolution image will not significantly harm the copyright owner's market and it is not a direct market substitute. -Nv8200p talk 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg[edit]

Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Blood red sandman (notify | contribs).

Photos from news agencies (here, the source given is news.indahnesia.com, which credits the photo to detik.com, another news source) are not to be used (unless the photo is iconic in its own right - and this one isn't), and fair use cannot be claimed. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #5 for more details regarding news agency photos. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose for the same reason as above.Circeus 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yeah, it's unlikely that a free image could be obtained. But it is a press photo. Our policies explicitly prohibit use of press photos on Wikipedia, as the photo itself is not iconic in any way. Even fair use itself, off of Wikipedia, might not be able to be claimed, as press photos are certainly small images for profit. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't Delete I don't know anything about the iamge use policy besides everything needs a tag, but, I don't see any other images that show the plane broken in half available on Wikipedia. If anyone can find another better image, that is more legal, thats great, but until one is found, there is no other photo and this one should not be deleted. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not about replaceability. The policy makes very clear that there are certainly exceptions to the use of press photos, but namely, iconic photos, such as Mary Ann Vecchio at Kent State, the execution of the Viet Cong captain in '68, and the like. This is not one of those exceptions — it's competition for what is obviously a for-profit photo. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move to wikimedia commons its ok on wikimedia commons--Jer10 95 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The Commons is for free images. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Image kept. The use of the image adds greatly to the article to understand the extent of the damage to aircraft. Our policies do not explicitly prohibit the use of press photos. In this case, the photo itself is newsworthy, is used in a related article and no free alternative exists. Use of this low resolution image will not significantly harm the copyright owner's market and it is not a direct market substitute. -Nv8200p talk 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dili_airport_aust_troops.jpg[edit]

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

Copyright violation. Photos from news agencies (here, the source given is the Sydney Morning Herald) are not to be used (unless the photo is iconic in its own right - and this one isn't), and fair use cannot be claimed. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #5 for more details regarding news agency photos. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the time this was one of the images that appeared everywhere in coverage of the response to the crisis, but in hindsight it's not sufficiently unique. --bainer (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ct4e.jpg[edit]

Image:Ct4e.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Winstonwolfe (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation placed on users page. this image is Crown Copyright - users beef against crown copyright seems rather hypothetical - many crown copyright images have been on wikipedia for a long period of time with no issue arising - it is difficult for me to concieve of any use of the image that would breach crown copyright without also breaching Wikipedia policy. {{NZCrownCopyright}} In this template, it is stated the image is non free use, and you are then directed to a non free use template. The non-free use requirements really don't fit the compliance with crown copyright requirements, and I suggest application of them is inappropriate. Someone should sit down and produce a Crown Copyright version. In the mean time, failure to fit neatly in non free use template boxes - or even fill the silly thing in - should be no reason to delete an image. In the unlikley event there is a real rather than obscure theoritical conflict with Wikipedia policy, I suggest the most practical solution is to keep the crown copyright images and rewrite the policy. Wikipedia policy is not graven stone, it is all to often not even vaguely sensible, and given how prevelant Crown Copyright images have become on wikipedia, citing policy is not trump card - realistically few users were involved in drafting policy and they don't seem to have any knowledge of or consideration for New Zealand intellectual property law. Winstonwolfe 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright allows images to be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.

Wikipedia considers images non-free if they do not allow — unencumbered, save for history and attribution — redistribution and reproduction, derivative works, and redistribution and reproduction of those derivative works.

Since these images must be "reproduced accurately," we can't make derivative works. Since we can't use them in a "misleading context," we have restrictions on redistribution and reproduction. We can't rewrite these facts, and I don't see what kind of a policy change you're looking for.

There are barely any New Zealand Crown Copyright images on Wikipedia at the moment, anyway — 135 last time I looked. The only reason a lot of them are still here is because of the literally tens upon tens of thousands of problematic images — it takes time to get to them all. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you've stuck a fair use rationale on the page. There's not much of a fair use argument to keep this image, considering there's a free image of the plane just a bit further down the page. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response. Regarding fair use, if you read what was said on the page, you'll see I readily acknowledge theere is nothing special about the image at all, (in fact, I have a photo of one of these planes I took myself which I could scan and release to replace this one without any IP issues). That is not the point. I think talking about fair use template is inappropriate in the context of Crown Copyright. Not least because in my understanding 'fair use' as defined at wp:fair use is no defence under New Zealand law, so saying "fair use" will get Wikipedia or ISPs nowhere if they do fall foul of the New Zealand courts. Asking for it may create a false illusion of security if the use is "fair".

To me, the issues, are, as you rightly identify, the requirements of

1. acknowledgement of copyright,

2. derivative use, and

3. misleading context. I would also add

4. derogatory use.

I think these four requirements are entirely reasonable and I think Wikipedia should live with them, rather than losing a large number of images.

In the context of images relating to New Zealand, I think 135 is a very large number - and I am guessing that figure is only those crown copyright images which used the crown copyright template. If, to those from larger nations, 135 seems a small number, it may be worth checking whether similar similar issues apply to, for example, UK crown copyright?

Now, looking at the second issue you raised, is the derivative use and misleading context restriction a serious issue, or blind following of policy, because it is policy?

Derivative use would be things like making it part of a montage, and claiming copyright of that montage as a new work of art. It seems reasonable for any user contemplating derivative use to look at the image page, where the crown copyright limitation is clearly noted, and they will then know they have to ask permission - if they go ahead and break copyright, that is their action, and not Wikipedias problem, because Wikipedia displayed the copyright - and that is all that was required.

Similarly, any user who uses the image in a misleading context "this is a Cessna 172 of the Bolivian airforce" will be quickly corrected by fellow Wikipedians, and seriously the New Zealand Government is NOT going to have a go at Wikipedia at some breif error.

I really think this is a non-issue and it will be a great pity to loose a large number of new Zealand images - let alone other jurisdictions government copyright - because of pedantic adherence to a policy that seems, at least to me, unnecessary. Winstonwolfe 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we merge discussions? I'm making approximately the same argument below. (I originally started this argument on this image, but then noted that on the original page it explicitly says (c) Royal New Zealand Air Force. I'd rather not get sidetracked on whether this makes the image "identified as being the copyright of a third party" in the terminology.) Gimmetrow 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Seems to be an identical issue. Winstonwolfe 06:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia's issues are (1) reproduction and redistribution, (2) derivative works, and (3) reproduction and redistribution of those derivative works. Adherence to these guidelines is good and important, as it means that everything we have on Wikipedia, save for limited instances of legimitate fair use, is free. Third parties can modify our content, use it commercially, rip it apart, put it back together, what have you — we want to permit any manner of reproduction, redistribution, and modification. See WP:5P and WP:C. I'm headed off to bed soon, so I won't be responding for a while. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay...no rush, I'm working this weekend so won't have much to say for a while either...

Not just Kiwis

I have had a chance to check UK crown copyright - there are at least 288 UK crown copyright images uploaded, all subject to a no misleading context clause identical to the New Zealand one you object to - and a bunch of other restrictions. Before we start this snowball rolling, I think we need UK users should be brought into this debate, and a search made for other similar jurisdictions images, (the other commonwealth nations spring to mind for starters).

Reproduction and Redistribution

I guess from my end, I see the main aim is being an encylopedia, rather than as a store of free images for commercial use. So I think it is better to have images with reasonable minor limitations - like fair use and crown copyright - than not have those images. I think commercial users can reasonably be expected to to read the template beneath the image they are down loading. But whether they do or not, it does not matter to Wikipedia, for Wikipedia is not liable, because it acknowledged crown copyright. Because there is no liability on Wikipedia, and the template provides fair warning to others, I don't see how reproduction and redistribution are a problem. This is not a napster situation. Users who reproduce the image with notice of copyright do nothing wrong, users who do not acknowledge the copyright bring no blame on Wikipedia - by having acknowledgement of the crown copyright with the stored image - which the template does - Wikipedia absolves itsef from liability.

Policy already compromised for US, why not for other nations?

I think the limitations already round fair use have set the precedent - allowing US law fair use exception (which is no protection in some other jurisdictions) but not NZ crown copyright - or UK - seems just picking up one cultures exception and ignoring other nations (see Wikipedia:Copyrights). If an exception can be made for fair use, it can be made for other, reasonable and similar reasons. incidentally I am worried about the danger of thinking that "free use" justifies publication in any jurisdiction - it is not the law everywhere. See also Jimbo Wales comments; [2]. Winstonwolfe 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not ignoring anything. Fair use hadn't been claimed for this image, a fair use rationale was never used, and this image itself doesn't have much of a reason to be kept under fair use cause there are obvious free alternatives. I don't really see a debate here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Template:CrownCopyright, for the UK, isn't a free license either. We're using all of those images under a fair use rationale, but we haven't claimed fair use here, nor do we have any reason to. I don't see what you're trying to say, as this isn't a "reasonable and similar reason." Your interpretation of Jimbo Wales' comments isn't very accurate either. He's saying that we should try to respect restrictions, like the restrictions found in NZ CC. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corwn copyright does not really allow derivatives and we know the uk version isn't isn't compatible with the GFDL. Thus it is a non free lisence and such material should not be used without a legit fair use claim.Geni 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm communicating this very well, because continued references to fair use show you don't understand what I am saying.

CT/4e - who cares As far as CT4e goes, the fair use tag on the image was only added cause you asked me to fill in the template, and it makes it clear there is no fair use defence of it and does not dispute this image does not fit within US fair use law/Wikipedia policy, (and as far as I can tell, due to American bias or laziness, the two are practically identical). As the notes on the image make clear, the image itself is not even very important. (Though I would consider removing the image petty bureaucratic vandalism I'm not about to die in a ditch about it.

Crown Copyright - the important issue. I am worried that this image appears to be part of a larger campaign to remove the crown copyright images, by illogically applying an inappropriate "fair use" policy to them.

Free use and Fair use As I understand it, and feel free to correct me, the basic rule in English language Wikipedia is that all images should be able to be reporduced and redistributed - if you like, free use.

Unfortunately, free use doesn't work, as many important images are the intellectual property of others.

For this reason it has been recognised an exception to free use is needed, while at the same time protecting Wikipedians from liability from infringing upon others intellectual property.

At the moment, the only exception to free use is the concept of "fair use" which has been lifted from US law and applied to everything in Wikipedia as a policy.

Regardless of it being Wikipedia policy, I think indiscrimintae application of the US law fair use principle is flawed for two reasons:

Fair Use fails to achieve its purpose. Wikipedia and the material on it is not only subject to US law - and other jurisdictions do not have the same fair use rules. Wikipedias fair use policy is unlikley to offer any protection to users outside the US. For this reason it is irrelevant whether crown copyright images are fair use, for fair use is no protection against liability for wikipedia or users, (unless they are one of the minority of English speakers who live in the United States). Putting Crown Copyright images through fair use tests is not only irrelevant, it is potentially creating a false sense of security. If you choose to say the only exception to free use is fair use, and if you follow Jimbo Wales policy of respecting other jurisdictions intellectual property rights, then all Crown Copyright images - UK, NZ or where ever, should be deleted.

A Fair Use only policy unfairly unecessarily and disadvantages non US government images. Fair use is, as I mentioned, a US legal concept which is alien to other juridictions. The result of my reasoning in 1 - and the practical actions of Rebelguys2 - is to allow US government images, but either delete UK and NZ images or retain them only if American users - and no others - are protected from using them outside the laws of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth nations. This is the sort of accidental xenophobia which can really get peoples backs up. Wikipedia already has a disproportionate American contribution bias which is natural, but if the encycopledia is to represent all peoples then their customs and laws must be respected and incorporated into Wikipedia. That was my other interpretation of Jimbo Wales quote, [3], which Rebelguys2 thinks I misinterpreted. Allowing only US law exceptions to the free use principle will increase this bias, by excluding other nations equivalent exceptions to intellectual property restrictions. What the crown copyright templates could offer is the introduction of a reasonable, simple and easily understood exception to the free use rule, to give access to Commonwealth government material for use on Wikipedia.

What now? Now at this point, I think there are two options.

We could blindly enforce a flawed Wikipedia policy, measuring all non-US images against a US law test. If we do this, we will always have the defence that you were only following the rules, and we can claim all the people who uploaded crown copyright images should have read all the small print and then lobbied for a change instead of just posting and unrealistically suggest people delete all their images, have a debate about policy and then reload all the images.

Or we can recognise the reality that few users formulate or follow those sorts of policy minutae. We can recognise the objections to Crown copyright are ideological rather than real, that the reality is crown copyright images extend Wikipedias coverage without presenting any significant inconvenience to users wishing to copy them, that there is less legal laibility in leaving them alone than in applying a false fair use test to keep them some. Of course, I want us to take the take the second course, to start a reasoned debate about whether the policy should be revisited and to suspend the deletionism against Crown copyright images until policy revision has been adopted or rejected.

Winstonwolfe 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is whether the image is free or not. These are not. If fair use doesn't work, then all of these images should be deleted. If you want to bring up Jimbo's comment, then OK — we'll respect NZ CC, then. It's not free, and since we can't argue fair use, all of these images should be deleted. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute they are not free. There is no dispute they do not fit under "fair use" There is dispute about whether fair use policy is appropriate. Discussion about this, similar cases and the possibility of reforming Wiki policy regarding fair use now under NZ Crown Copyrights is now on [4] Winstonwolfe 04:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Image kept for this deletion nomination. We have many non-free licenses that are valid licenses. This was never claimed to be a free image. -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cadet_Crest.jpg[edit]

Image:Cadet_Crest.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Brian New Zealand (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a logo. It would be a fair use image anyway.Circeus 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, this is a logo of the org, normally we allow logo's under a fairuse licence, the reason it was tagged as crown copyright, was because I uploaded it in the days before we decided that crown copyright was a non-free licence. I belive that the logo is important to the NZCF articles. Brian | (Talk) 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image will be good when a fair use rationale is given. I'll withdraw the nomination then. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - done :) Brian | (Talk) 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Withdraw nomination for deletion. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Incidentally, even though you can satisify Wikipedia image policy and US law without reference to crown copyright, Wikipedia copyright policy is to try to follow the copyright laws of local jurisdictions where possibleWikipedia:copyright. As New Zealand law reserves Crown Copyright on Government crests coats of arms and so on, while the "fair use" doctorine is limited to the USA, (and Wikipedia policy). Although there is similar provision to fair use for news worthy material in NZ law, this is not within it, so I think it would be politic to continue to acknowledge crown copyright :-). See also [5] Winstonwolfe 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If we followed New Zealand law and didn't make an exception for US fair use, all of these images should be immediately deleted. Acknowledgment of Crown Copyright is acknowledgment of this image's non-free status. Only under fair use could we possible keep this image. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See lengthy entry above for why Rebelguys2's comment is both correct and missing the wider problem. Winstonwolfe 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept as nomination was withdrawn. -Nv8200p talk 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CB_military_badge.jpg[edit]

Image:CB_military_badge.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dr pda (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment applies to a number of images noting Crown Copyright. The copyright notice is:
  © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002- 2005 Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission.
  
  This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.
  
  The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material on this site that is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.
- Looks to me like it says it may be reproduced free of charge if reproduced accurately. While this might be understood as not permitting derivative works, how is this a "non-free license"? Gimmetrow 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If derivative works are not expressly permitted, like in some CC and the GFDL licenses, for example, it is "non-free." — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're saying "non-free" here refers to "free as in speech", not "free as in beer"? Just want to make it clear that you are objecting to Crown Copyright items on the grounds it is a non-derivative license, even though the copyright terminology says it "may be reproduced ... in any format or media..."? Gimmetrow 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia prohibits the use of images that do not explicitly allow unencumbered reproduction and redistribution, derivative works, and reproduction and redistribution of those derivative works. Crown Copyright states that, "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." That is a restriction on derivative works, and, to a certain degree, reproduction and redistribution. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it is a restriction, but inaccurate or derogatory derivatives would, in nearly all situations, be disallowed on WP by WP:ATT and WP:NPOV anyway. Gimmetrow 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But could I take the image, make it extremely offensive-looking, and then sell the image for profit in a venture completely unrelated to Wikipedia? No? That's the degree of "free" we're looking for here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Image kept for this deletion nomination. We have many non-free licenses that are valid licenses. This was never claimed to be a free image. -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BarrettReef.png[edit]

Image:BarrettReef.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sendervictorius (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BarretReef.jpg[edit]

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

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aust_NZ_Tonga.jpg[edit]

Image:Aust_NZ_Tonga.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nick Dowling (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a Fair-use Rationale, It would be nice to keep this image on wiki, as its hard, if not imposable to get a free use image depicting this, Brian | (Talk) 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No indication it's a promotional photo, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was released under NZ Government crown copyright and can be reproduced without permission for any purpose. Please take the time to follow the link from where I downloaded the photo and review the copyright statement there. This seems to be a frivolous nomination and a waste of everyone's time. --Nick Dowling 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant legal notice is available at: http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/footer-links/legal-notices.htm and states [with emphasis added]

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002- 2004 Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission.

This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.

The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material on this site that is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. In other words, certain derivative works and certain cases of redistribution are not allowed, so this image is not free enough for Wikipedia. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the image is ever used for any purpose on wikipedia which is 'derogatory' or 'misleading' (whatever the exact definition of these terms is) it would be edited out. I think that the NZ crown copyright discussion needs to be 'kicked upstairs' as you seem to be the only person saying that this legal statement isn't OK and, no offense intended, I don't know what your credentials are for doing so. The NZ Crown Copyright category has existed for well over a year without any complaint, so I think that some kind of high-level ruling is needed. --Nick Dowling 06:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bring it "upstairs," but that's just going to waste our time. It's a non-free image with, at the time of nomination, no claim of fair use. One thing or another has to be done with it. And it's obviously not a publicity photo, so the current fair use claim doesn't work, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"that's just going to waste our time" - What's the rush? I have asked User:Kirill Lokshin for a ruling or other assistance with this - he's the Lead Coordinator of the Military History project and may be familiar with this kind of issue. --Nick Dowling 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Kirill's advice I have posted this at: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems --Nick Dowling 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The image did not add significantly to the article. -Nv8200p talk 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AUCKLAND_EVENING.jpg[edit]

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

Copyright violation. Orphaned. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ABCA_(NZDF).jpg[edit]

Image:ABCA_(NZDF).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nick Dowling (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was released under a NZ government crown copyright statement which allows it to be freely reproduced. Please follow the link to the source of the image and review the statement. --Nick Dowling 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reread the NZCC statement, as it has restrictions that make these images too restrictive for use on Wikipedia. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7797DonBrash.jpg[edit]

Image:7797DonBrash.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by HTait (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. Orphaned. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat-cemetery.jpg[edit]

Image:Cat-cemetery.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Enceladus (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No valid license - only a non-free license is provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]