Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). I uploaded the official Parliament photo of Penny Priddy on September 1 and that has a Canadian Parliament copyright on it. The image article of Penny Priddy needs to add a link on the article of Penny Priddy. That Canadian Parliament photo of Penny Priddy is better than the photo of the NDP federal convention. And I don't want the photo from the NDP federal convention on to the article and that image to be deleted. Steam5 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "offcial" photo is copyrighted. This one is not. per Policy as has already been explained to you we must use this one. YDAM TALK 00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is on Commons. Can't do anything here. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). I wanted to put the official Parliament photo of Olivia Chow on to this article, but not the photo of Olivia Chow at the NDP federal convention because that's a non-official Parliament photo and I want this image of Olivia Chow at the NDP federal convention to be deleted and I want the official Parliament photo of Olivia Chow that has a Canadian Parliament copyright on it on to the article of Olivia Chow back where it belongs. Steam5 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "offcial" photo is copyrighted. This one is not. per Policy as has already been explained to you we must use this one. YDAM TALK 00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is on Commons. Can't do anything here. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by SilentRage (notify | contribs). is unsuitable, animated, does not represent person well, not confirmed for GDFL Giant onehead 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a more clear image with him in it, then go ahead, upload it. I don't see anything wrong with this image. It's a joke that he does on his Podcast. If I could, I would upload the same picture, with the second frame of animation deleted. ---SilentRAGE! 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with it is that it doesn't really represent the person well and I'm pretty sure that you would need RD's permission to post that unto his article. On a style point, a picture for someone's entry should be fairly non-distracting, in that it focuses more on the person and is at least somewhat flattering (NPOV, I spose). And, I think it makes Wikipedia look pretty bad to include pictures like that in articles as well. It should not remain, and sometimes it's hard to find pictures for an article, a lot of articles don't have pictures and it's fine if this article doesn't have one for awhile, if ever. Giant onehead 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ivan Kricancic (notify | contribs). No source (beside a link to a fansite that happens to use the images). After a (polite) long talk with the uploader, he seems to insist that a fan-site is a valid source for promotional shots. this thread on WP:FU talk about cases like these. The {{no source}} tag keeps being reverted.- Abu Badali 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The {{no source}} tag kept getting reverted because a source is listed. These images are fair use images. I have listed the source of these images and also contacted the source, and they have allowed these images to be used on wikipedia. Even if someone doesn't think the images are fair use (but they are), "fan sites" are promotional, so the images are acceptable, just under a different tag. If someone objects to these, then they should find a free version and upload them. But at the moment these images are good and should stay. Ivan Kricancic 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are fair use if they have in fact been released. Your best bet is to release the contents of the email as proof and put an end to the need of putting them up for deletion. --NuclearUmpf 10:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The images do not qualify under fair use. For rationale, see [1]. --Durin 11:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have been released by owner screenshot - So they are useable on Wikipedia. If free alternatives can be found then wonderful, but these which have permission should not deleted. --NuclearUmpf 12:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That permission is rather irrelevant if the site owner isn't actually the copyright holder for the images, which he obviously is not. Hosting a file on your webserver is not a creative act and thus he has no authority to authorize or restrict the use of those images. Unless an ORIGINAL source for the images can be found or reasonably inferred, I am in agreement with Abu that they should be deleted. BigDT 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You actually do not know that. They claim to be the copyright holder for the material and as such extend permission. Your assumptions should really be supported by something more then personal opinion. Oddly enough you are saying you are in agreement unless proof is presented that you are right. Not being able to find another source predating this one would symbolize they are the copyright holder, not vice versa --NuclearUmpf 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could a fan site possibly be the copyright holder of these images? That makes no sense. BigDT 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "By-permission" has not been an acceptable license for over two years, and they do not meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Carnildo 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the fan site really owned the pictures, they could arguably qualify for fair use as promo photos. The permission would serve to demonstrate that promotion is the intended purpose. However, this is rather irrelevant as I find it hard to believe that a fan site really owns the pictures. How many actors and actresses have private photo shoots for third party fan websites? BigDT 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these images. If you have such a big problem with these images, why don't just go delete every image in the "fair use in" category? They are all just the same, yet these have been singled out. On Kryptonsite's website, it states that all content belongs to Kryptonsite, unless otherwise noted; and these images were not noted as belonging to someone else, so Kryptonsite owns the copyright. I have provided proof that the copyright holder (Kryptonsite) has allowed these images to be used for Wikipedia - that could also mean that if Wikipedia ever was released in print form, the images could be used there too. I just don't see what your problem is with using these images on Wikipedia, as they obviously don't violate copyright. But, as I've stated in some other places, I just don't care anymore, and I'm tired of fighting for these images. I'll just never upload an image again so I don't have to go through all this crap again. - Ivan Kricancic 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. To repeat what Durin and Carnildo have said, no matter who owns the images, they do not meet item 1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, and we do not accept content under permission for use in Wikipedia (WP:CSD#I3). Ivan is correct, of course, in noticing that there are thousands of other images that do not meet our fair use requirements. Hopefully we will get to them all, but it will take time. ×Meegs 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs). lack of proper source an tag play. Image once had no source, then had a fansite as a source, then was tagged as a magazine cover, promophoto, publicity photo... It's only a image found on the web used to illustrate articles about the celebrity depicted, the fictional character, etc. If it's a magazine cover, can't be used as it's currently used. If it's a promophoto, no one was able to provide a source for verifing this information...- Abu Badali 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The provided fair use rationale seems fine to me. Dionyseus 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Abu often overreacts on these things. It looks fine to me as well.--CyberGhostface 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to disagree that the image is "documented well enough to keep". We need source info to claim this is a promotional image. --Abu Badali 09:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed tag to fairusein:Callisto (Xena) -Nv8200ptalk 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I insist we need proper source information, that was the original reason for this ifd. If we're not sure about the image source, we can't, for instance, say that the image use won't degrade the commercial value of the original publication (as we don't know the original publication). --Abu Badali 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistance is irrelevent as mine would be. No copyright image can be 100% guarenteed to survive a copyright infringement case. We do not know that using the image won't degrade the commercial value. We would not know that for sure under any circumstance. We do not know that the magazine cover the image is on is not the original publication. I have no doubt the use would be judged to be fair if we were taken to court. I realize we don't want to go to court in the first place, but it is going to take a little risk to create the highest possible quality encyclopedia and we cannot do it without using fair use, including images that have a little ambiguity. -Nv8200ptalk
Our insistence is necessary for the task of creating the highest possible quality free encyclopedia. There's no reason at all to use this image. A screenshot from some episode could be used to illustrate this fictional character and would have a 100% verifiable source info (the series name and episode number). --Abu Badali 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot is no more free then this promo shot is so using one does not make a quality free encyclopedia. This shot is as verifiable as a screenshot. They are all copyright by Universal, the owner of the Xena franchise. -Nv8200ptalk 12:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the reason for this ifd nomination is the image's lack of source information. A screenshot would easly have this info. --Abu Badali 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't get any source information from a screenshot. -Nv8200ptalk 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? What about "Source: Screenshot from episode 11 from 3rd Season of Xena: Warrior Princess (aprox. 11min)"? This would be the source and would be vierifiable. --Abu Badali 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a source. That is a description. A source tells who the copyright holder is and what rights they reserve like what is on the image in the article. -Nv8200ptalk 15:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add the movie company. --Abu Badali 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? Why are you so hellbent on getting it removed?
The fact that the image appeared on the cover of the official magazine should prove its legit. Furthermore, the episode is from the episode "Return of Callisto", right after Callisto kills Perdicas and Xena arrives. --DrBat 00:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Iloveayu (notify | contribs). Improper source. The source given is a url to a page that happen to use the image. But unlikely the original source. I can't simply tag it as {{no source}} because it keeps being reverted. That's a pitty, because there's a (small) chance that this image is PD, but without a proper souce, we can't claim that.- Abu Badali 10:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Davidgothberg (notify | contribs). The three hash images above created and uploaded by myself. They are now orphan and obsolete since I have remade them into SVG images that I have uploaded to Commons. These old images are now not used on any wiki (except on my own user page in my list of images to be deleted). --David Göthberg 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by RecklessFire (notify | contribs). OR, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, image has "logo" in the name, which implies that this could be a corporate logo or some such thing and thus not free BigDT 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by RecklessFire (notify | contribs). OR, obviously not free, "Pic from my personal gallery folder on computer" is not a source BigDT 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by KiethRagner (notify | contribs). OR, unused vanity pic, page was previously blanked by an anon, which may very well be (based on the anon's other contributions) the uploader himself, and as such could be interpreted as a request for deletion BigDT 11:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ptaborp (notify | contribs). OR, UE, summary claims that this is an album cover ... you never can tell these days, but if it is, then it is a non-free image. BigDT 11:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dallashan (notify | contribs). OR, photo of something that looks like a carton of cigarettes. Whatever this box is, it is highly decorative and thus, this image, as a derivative work, is non-free. BigDT 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ivan Kricancic (notify | contribs). No source (I tried the {{no source}} tag, but it got reverted.) A link to a forum site is given as the source, but given the nature of the site, it's unlikely to be the copyright holder or authorized publisher for the image. Abu Badali 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a free license image, then upload it. This image is fair use and comes from a German sports website. Sports websites usually have their own photographers, so it's almost certain that this source owns the copyright. Given the nature of the site, it is very likely that they own the copyright, as sports sites usually have dedicated photographers to take pictures for their stories. - KingIvan 07:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a free license image, then upload it. This image is fair use. This website looks to be a promotional website. It's alos possible that this could be or become a free license image, because the site it comes from is an Iranian site, so the picture of this Iranian actor may have been taken by the owner of the site during a press conference or something. - KingIvan 07:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
07:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
