Disagree. Keep, as it is part of the internet media kit promoting the Canadian Skeleton team. That is promotional use. --Nick Dillinger 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's part of the media kit from the Canadian Olympic team or, more specifically, from the skeleton team, the image should come from there not from TSN.ca (a sports news site). Sue Anne 06:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. There's no evidence that this is from a press kit. --Carnildo 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, there is a rationale, but it's doubtful that it would be strong enough. Nothing stopping a creative Wikipedian from throwing together an original image that communicates the same info. BD2412T 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep no valid argument has been presented to delete it. The image is taken from After Downing Street where no explicit copyright is mentioned, therefore the fair use on only this article. Furthermore, this image is not about the rationale to impeach, but a rendition of a Zogby poll comparing the percentage of people supporting impeachment proceedings against Clinton and Bush. Why such a comparison is not allowed escapes me.Nomen Nescio 12:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that After Downing Street has no right to the images they create? The law of copyright vests the right in the creator, whether they assert it or not, unless they expressly assert that they are releasing the image from copyright protection (as we do by posting things under the GFDL), which has not been done here so far as I can tell. Of course the comparison is allowed, we simply have to make our own image with which to do it. BD2412T 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Note -- After Downing Street did not create this image, which is rather obvious to anyone who has ever read the WSJ, and indeed they attribute it to the WSJ. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am suggesting that if not mentioning anything ipso facto means it is subject to copyright I fail to understand why everybody explicitly informs us of their copyright. In other words the absence of it in no way prohibits the use in a fair use manner IMHO.Nomen Nescio 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If after downing street is the source, then it is obviously fair use. Kevin Baastalk 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be obvious that they won't object to our using it - not the same as "fair use", which is a narrowly defined term with a specific legal meaning. BD2412T 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
After Downing Street is decidedly not the source; the Wall Street Journal holds the copyright to this image. Calling ADS the source is like uploading a copyrighted MP3 and calling Napster the source. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean ADS is violating copyright?Nomen Nescio 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially they have a fair use claim, although I doubt it -- they have reproduced the whole article without commentary, which is a bit brazen. Unlike Wikipedia, their site is probably not big enough for the WSJ to care much. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know, just thought since ADS uses it it must be fair use. If you say it is not I will believe you and retract my previous support.Nomen Nescio 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, there is no possible basis for keeping this: it communicates two things -- pictures of Bush and Clinton, and two pie charts. The same information could easily be conveyed without the use of copyrighted images. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No bright line fair use test, but it looks bad under both substantiability (entire graphic taken) and and transformation clause (no useful commentary on the graph, you are using the graph, not synergy for new creation). Doesn't look good under marketability clause either. --Muchosucko 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mellisa richards.jpg - CV - while the image may be part of a Canadian Olympic Committee press kit, it's taken from a copyrighted web page at cbc.ca. - Sue Anne 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi, I'm a long time lurker, and I think images like this should be kept. Here's my rational as copied from my user page. I am not a big fan of copyright at all, and believe that fair use of biographical pictures on a FREE encyclopedia should include all images publicly released for non sales purposes. Even if an image is copyrighted and appears on a news site, the fact that some organization releases it, therefor makes the showcasing of the image on Wikipedia De Facto fair use. Unless the documented rightsholder demands that it be taken down, the image deserves to stay on site.--Semenko 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. All the philosophy and wishful thinking in the world won't help when the copyright lawyers come around. --Carnildo 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sue Ann, Carnildo. Semenko, that's your personal philosophy but in direct opposition to Wikipedia policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Rapomon (notify). The image was originally mistagged, so I'm listing it correctly. The original person who tagged it says that it is obsolete, and has been replaced by Image:Flag,_Burgos.gif- Esprit15d 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Digg (notify). UE, original research. This image was created by a Wikipedia user in order to support his personal complaint about the website Digg.- Rhobite 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There previously was a whole section about the fact that firefoxmyths.com was blocked on digg, rhob removed that section and I did not contest. Rhob went on to add a "cite needed" to the one sentence left. The sentence claimed that digg blocks certain sites. Duh, anyone can log in and verify that certain sites are blocked, tinyurl, firefoxmyths etc. Since he asked for a "citation", I provided one, and *he removed it as original research*. When confronted on IRC he agreed no let the image stay(1). I say this is wikilawyering at it's worst.
(1) - Source: [2] : <rhobite> Minerale: as I said, I think on wiki is best. I won't revert if the image gets added back to digg. but I do have a problem with the firefoxmyths story. sound fair? User:Digg 02:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, not useful to illustrate the article digg. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with you, mike, however rhob (who, buy the way, blocked me) does not allow the comment about the blocked stories to stand unless there's a citation. Digg 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomen Nescio 12:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
