Image:This21.jpg - Marked as a public domain image. Perhaps it was really made by the uploader, but unencyclopedic anyway. Only used in the article WikiMinotaur which has been speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 13:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Eric Shalov (notify). Photo from the uploader himself, where he claims copyright (fair enough) and gives only a "non-transferrable license to use this image on any Wikimedia web site until the author chooses to delete this image". --Abu Badali 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that user Locust43 removed the IFD tag with this edit on 16:41, 28 March 2006. ClarkBHM 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second Comment The tags have been updated to claim fair use status. I don't think that fair use is applicable in this case. ClarkBHM 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think there is a very strong fair use argument for this picture. It works under transformability because we are discussing the town's government and this is a picture of the governemnt in action in a non-profit educational setting. There is little potential market for this. Use of it on Wikipedia does not substantially threaten the commerciability of the image. The image is from a government source. The copyright notice is a non-issue. The only weakness is that a substantial portion of the image, i.e. the whole thing.--Muchosucko 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user Quadell recently explained fair use to me in a quite understandable way. (Thanks Quadell!) In essence "We can use copyrighted images and text under "fair use" (and we can even if the copyright-holder expressly forbids reproduction). But there are two hurdles: we have to make sure its use would qualify as a "fair use" under U.S. law, and we have to make sure the use falls within Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, which are stricter. One of Wikipedia's requirements is that a similar photo (one that would illustrate the article just well) must not be available or recreatable under a free license. So a copyrighted (non-free) image of an apple could not be used to illustrate the apple article, since anyone could take a photo of an apple and release it under a free license. The same is true of, say, the Taj Mahal: even if no one has yet taken a photo of the Taj Mahal and released it under a free license, someone could." - In this case, anyone can take a fair use picture of the public safety department in action. Regardless of whether there is a potential market for this, the City of Hoover holds the copyright. Whereas the federal government does not claim their copyright, the City of Hoover has explicitly claimed their copyright on this page. Thus we can't just ignore their copyright claim. Since we cannot use it under fair use, we cannot use it at all. ClarkBHM 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This picture still qualifies under fair use, and the copyright statement is still a non-issue. But this image is only fair use in this context, it cannot be reproduced under a free-license. I don't understand the issue here. There are blanket fair use qualifications listend here: [1]. The copyright holders of these fair use images do not release their rights, but Wikipedia uses them under fair use. That copyright holders reserve their rights is not enought to delete under Wikipedia. Also the public can reuse images cleared under fair use, but not under a free license. There is no difference beteween these blanket fair use cases and this particular case. --Muchosucko 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All my photographs (Polaroïd or digital ones) are under license to Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 2.0 Belgium...Stephan Koenig 81.244.172.89
_45_rpm_-_Well_Now,_Dig_This_-_11-1955.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
