Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 23 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:270416 titanmethane 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rei (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not sure but ESA work is not necessarily US gov work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESA is something European. It has nothing to do with the United States Government except that ESA and NASA cooperate about various things. I think that there are some copyright tags which say that a subset of ESA's material is freely licensed, but I can't remember what those templates are called and I don't know whether this file is covered by any of those templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the permission description in the file. It points out that Wikipedia doesn't have an option for the ESA license, and explicitly spells out the ESA license. I did check into the licensing before posting that; the problem is Wikipedia's lack of options to choose from, not the license. -- Rei (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a fairly exotic license. I am not certain if commercial use and derivative use are allowed, however; the fact that they require permission only for commercial promotion may imply that non-advertising but commercial usage is OK but that's just inference. There is {{Non-free ESA media}} but it refers to a page that specifies an explicit no commercial use rule.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the restriction begins, "If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion". If there was any ambiguity in the term "commercial promotion" (which is really just a synonym for advertising), the word "advertising" before makes pretty clear what is being restricted. They also reiterated this point earlier: "ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service..."
Wikipedia's licensing policy doesn't require that advertising be allowed, which is why I posted it. Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind Wikipedia requiring commercial use? Rather than split hairs over what exactly Wikipedia's policy states, it'd be nice to know what the intent was so that we could ensure that this was a proper fit. -- Rei (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that you should be allowed to use files on websites which need to collect funds, for example websites with large fundraising banners with photos of Jimmy Wales. Also, copyright-wise we require a licence which allows you to use the image in advertisement, but this requirement doesn't seem to apply with respect to personality rights. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the goal is that there not be a conflict with Wikipedia's fundraisers? Even though, according to your link, most images of people are already in conflict? Also, I didn't even realize Wikipedia was registered as a corporation - heh, shows what I know  ;)
Anyway, I think it should be compliant with that goal. They prohibit the use of the image being used to state or imply the endorsement of a commercial product, process or service I think that would be a major stretch to consider having such an image in an article as being "ESA endorses Wikipedia and wants you to give them money". The last part is a bit more generic, stating that if the "images are used in advertising or any commercial promotion". But it's not like the images would be in the banner, they're just on the same page as an ad. The images are widely used in the news media (that's what they're there for), which is almost universally associated with banner ads.
On the other hand, if Wikipedia were to for some reason start taking random images from its articles and putting them in its banner ads without checking image licenses, then that could cause a conflict. Otherwise, I don't see a conflict with Wikipedia's goals. -- 31.209.198.1 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2016 (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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miniskirt 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alyga (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Scope concern, Seems only to be used in a talk page disscussion.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably copyright violation. Looks like someone took a professionally posed/modelled photograph and cropped it down. This has been uploaded since 2006 and as a result does appear around the Internet in various locations on a Tineye search, I'm not finding any evidence it isn't the uploader's. While this is relatively tame compared to some of the downright sleazy images uploaded to Commons in the Miniskirts category, I think it's not really useful - too small, too similar to other stuff on Commons, etc. Mabalu (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Possible copyright violation aside, its only use is as a mundane example of a risqué image on a talk page whose corresponding user page has been deleted, so it's practically orphaned, and it's unlikely to be useful on account of its cropping and small size, especially when compared to similar pictures. Rebbing 03:50, 4 June 2016 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morobar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mok9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is packaging artwork, so isn't the uploaders own work as claimed. However, is there anything here that's copyrightable as it appears to mostly be text? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2016 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry Popscene.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cartoon network freak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I do not believe that this image's presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding therefore failing WP:NFCCP #8. Uploader claims that it is being used to identify the subject of the article, the song, however we already have the cover art and a sound bite. Both of these items are also under fair use. The multiple fair use items on this page raises further issues with NFCCP #3a. Majora (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm the uploader of the file and I have to say that I strongly believe that the image really is important for the article. In the video of the song, the artist is most of the time playing tennis against herself, which the image tries to represent. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2016 (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.