Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3

Uploaded by The lorax (notify | contribs). Relative to where the image is being displayed (Mel Gibson) the fair use rationale is not applicable as a free alternative exists. (→Netscott) 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Mel's mugshot is a NPOV picture for his main picture! Come on! And the other free alternative had him looking bugeyed. This should be a fair replacement, at least for the moment.--The lorax 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The object of the image is to show what Mel Gibson looks like. The "mugshot" does this perfectly well (there's no extraneous details in the image) and is free. Short of another genuinely free image being available the currently available image should be used. (→Netscott) 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV should be maintained though; encyclopedias are professional, and using a desheveled mugshot is bad form, the other shot of him looking like his eyes are popping out is also inappropriate. This shot maintains a classy NPOV.--The lorax 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lorax, using a mugshot as an NPOV representation of the subject isn't a good choice when this better alternative exists. I doubt any lawyer would pursue legal recourse over this. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: It's not clear that mug shots are automatically in the public domain. See the discussions at Template talk:Mugshot and commons:Template talk:PD-US-mugshot. —Bkell (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jimbo Wales' suggestion, we should either source a free image, or use no image at all, to encourage someone else to. You'd be surprised how many people will freely license a picture if you ask nicely. Furthermore the mugshot adequately shows what Mel Gibson looks like, so this picture is ruled out under FUC#1, regardless of NPOV complaints (and remember, a flattering photo is just as much a POV as an unflattering one). ed g2s • talk 02:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Fear_and_loathing (notify | contribs). OR, unused alternate version of Image:Focalin.jpg BigDT 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Aloistchana (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Aloistchana (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cmbtrans (notify | contribs). OR, obviously a derivative of a copyrighted work BigDT 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cmbtrans (notify | contribs). OR, Non-free. Description says, "Modifications is Strictly Prohibited but usage of this userbar as your personal signiture is allowed. -- CMB Transit". BigDT 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied -- incompatible license. Jkelly 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Moe Epsilon (notify | contribs). Was an image that said "No picture available". Flip a coin over the usefulness of it. It was OB Image:Noimg.png. Subsequent to that, it was replaced with a logo for "2OID".- BigDT 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the previous revision to my Image. I'm not sure why User:Erasser uploaded over it. I previously used it for my userspace and any other place on Wikipedia that wanted to use it. Anyways, I distributed under the GFDL and I retagged it as such. Although it is OB to Image:Noimg.png. I don't care about it's existance. — Moe Epsilon 03:00 August 03 '06
Not deleted per talk. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ RE:User:Howcheng removal of the Below named image. User Howcheng, you have recently deleted images that appear on several articles, Holy Grail, Phoenix, and Sir Robert Bell. I kindly request that you furnish me a comprehensive rationallee as to why you have deleted this image. Further, it would be appreciated if you would cite Wickipedia Policy for this, and any other images that have been deleted by you, for the same rationalle (s). Thank you. User:Wales 09:31, 09 August 2006
    • RE: the deletion of Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell (Knight) Revealed by an Armoured Scroll bearing a Crest with the Holy Grail copy.png Dear Carnildo, you appear to be a most vigilant and agressive editor, however, I strongly disageree with your perceptions concerning this image, and that it should be deleted. Permission has been granted, following you initial tag and dispute, for use of the Arms of Sir Robert Bell d. 1577,(above) on the the select articles found on Wickipedia the free encyclopedia. Please be advised, that if you have considered this image for deleation, then by the same rationalle, and to be fair, reasonable and equitible, you must consider deleting almost every other example of a Coats of Arms that currently appear on Wickipedia. Coats of Arms, even those recreated from a blazon, descriptions, contrary to what you have indicated, are images; and those heraldic images, are by right, the property of the individual and his legitimate descendants, and or the entity to which the Arms were granted, for instance North Carolina, USA, etc. Please consult with the Collge of Arms, London, and or any other heraldic authority concerning this topic to learn more. Should you wish to come to back to me about any of this, you are kindly invited to do so. Regards.Wales 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the arms is governed by a set of laws entirely independant of copyright law -- laws that have no counterpart in the United States, where Wikipedia is based. What matters for copyright is this particular depiction of the arms, copyright to which is held, at least in the United States, by the person who drew it up.
And yes, I do plan to get most of the depictions of coats of arms deleted and replaced by free-licensed drawings. --Carnildo 08:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only almost right what you write: "this particular depiction of the arms, copyright to which is held, at least in the United Kingdom, by the person who drew it up" US does not have 'sweat of the brow' copyright. Merely copying an existing source, no matter how much "skill and labour" (as the UK lawyers call it) it takes, does not produce a copyright on that copy. --Rtc 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • User Carnildo: I respect what you write, however, I must inform you that even in the United States, where I reside, the image of which I have granted Wikipedia, "FREE" permission to use on the select articles, can not by law be recreated and used freely, as they are proteced by U.S. copyright under the legal umbrella, LOGO!.

Incidentally, you seem to be attached to the concept of FREE. You will be pleased to know that FREE permission has beed given for use of the image in question, for use on Wickipedia, The free enclypedia; however not every thing about Wickipedia is FREE, as it relies on contributions, from individuals such as myself and my colleagues, in order for it to remain FREE. It should be consided an honor that FREE permission has been granted to use the image, (otherwise I suspect no one would come across it, besides those who would discover it in some expensive leather bound work you would only find in the finest libraries) rather, than you dispute its' use!, claiming that the image can be re-created and displayed for free. Poppy cock! By chance where did you attend law school? If you do not mind me asking? User Carndildo, you clearly are misimformed concerning the use of this image, and you should consult http://www.uspto.gov/# re: U.S. Patent and trademark law, fro starters. By chance, why do you insist on being so zealous with your editiing, when there really is no need to be; at least concerning this matter? Perhaps in other situation where copyright infringement presents a liabilty for Wickipedia, your concern and edits are most warranted, however, this is not the case with respect to this image. If you insist, I would be happy to pursue this matter in person, at Wickipedia headquarters in St. Pete, FL, USA! (keep up the good work) Regards. Wales 08:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.69.17 (talk • contribs) [reply]

        • By-permission images like this are not generally permissible on the Wikipedia. Please notice that Wikipeda:Copyrights points out that the Wikipedia falls under the GFDL license. Images also must be kept under a free license, or with fair use rationale. By granting limited permission as you do, you make this image ineligible for the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is designed to be free (as in freedom) and should remain so. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to trademark law. Is this indeed a registered trademark? If so, who owns the trademark, and what terms would I search for to find the trademark registration in the USPTO database? --Carnildo 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/dsc_24.htm#24!
What does this link have to do with anything? It appears to be a section from the USPTO on how to describe trademarked images for automated searching. --Carnildo 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I was in error, concerning the images that I uploaded. Please excuse the former images that appeared as deemed necessary. You may be pleased to discover that I have recently uploaded the proper and formal versions bearing the necessary and legal Service Mark, (SM). The Logo/Coat of Arms images are both a hereditary legacy and a trademark/Service Mark, as they are actively used on my formal letter head, together with other media and applications, during the course of commerce, attached to my consulting services; that are particularly Pro bono in nature.

Should you wish to discover additional details, I would be delighted to furnish you with information including but not limited to the graphics firm that I retained to restore the images; of whom I believe holds certain additional copy right reservations, of the images. Please advise me of your physical mailing address, weither P.O.BOX or other, and I will make the necessary arraingments to disclose to you further details concerning the intelluctual property and their applications therof. Wales 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) BellDNA@MSN.COM Sir Robert Bell (Knight)[reply]

http://www.ggmark.com/ http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ http://www.sei.cmu.edu/about/legal-trademarks.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineServiceMark

If it is a service mark, then the correct tag for it is {{logo}}, and the image can only be used when discussing the mark or the goods, services, or corporation that it represents. --Carnildo 05:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct! a Logo tag for the (Heraldic Coats of Arms images with Crests) service mark (s) in question, that I utilize, (which incidentially, are also representations of period art), is appropriate, and has been properly assigned. They are available for, and qualify for fair use, as the Logo (s) are being utilized to illustrate certain articles relevant to the images, during an online event known as Wickipedia the free encyclopedia, and further, the images currently appear in articles to which discussions of the mark (s), or the features incorporated therin exist; for example: the Holy Grail, Phoenix, and Sir Robert Bell (Knight). I would wager the Logo s would aslo qualify for and compliment the article that discuses coats of arms. Wales 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is to make minimal use of non-free images. Since it's possible to illustrate the Holy Grail, Phoenix, and coat of arms using only free images, non-free images should not be used there. --Carnildo 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with the above policy, and even though I am not aware of the total number and or percentage of non-free images currently on diplay throughout Wickipedias webpages, I suspect with diligent editors such as yourself, they are at a minimum.

Regarding the Coat of Arms images, it would be proper to only illustrate extinct representations of Arms, of an Amiger, and thus, I disagree with your supposition that Arms that would fall under this catagory, should be recreated, and are then eligible for display under free license. Perhaps this is possible in the U.S., or else where, however, it would be very much disrespectful and improper, if not illegal. Even today, Coats of Arms are granted to institutions, Corporations, and to indivudauls by letters patent; for instance North Carolina and Washington D.C., and these Arms would be eligible for Free License. However, one can not by copyright, and should not by character, recreate from a blazon description the Arms of a different classification, for thier use. The blazon description of the Arms and the manifestation of that description into a image, is by right, for use solely by the entity to which the Arms were granted. Further, again, I concur with Wickipedias policy as it relates to the minimal use of Fair Use images, however, the images in question, offer a somewhat unique representaion of the relevant details, as they are currently utilized to illustrate the Holy Grail,& Phoenix articles. Wikipedia policy " Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). For details as to Wikipedia's policy in regards to fair use, or to ask questions about a specific instance, please see the page at Wikipedia:Fair use. Improper claims of fair use constitute copyright infringement and are illegal. As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available. " (End Quote)

The two images with the LOGO tags, are unfortunalty not Free License, however they are fortunatly Fair Use images. They illustrate each discussion, in a unique and particular light, and there is no alternative, or non- free-copyrighted replacement available, that I am aware of, in this realm that we now know as life, that illustrates or represents the details contained therin, in sucha a brilliant and unique fashion. Perhpas this if why art collectors and historians encouraged me to freely contribute my time to Wickipedia, and share my mark, however fairly! I note, that the images appear to be the only' illustrative images, that are classified under fair use within the two or three, articles that they appear within, so I would conservativley apprase that Wikipedia policy has been honored, as it would relate to the "minimal" use of Fair Use images; of this discussion. If you disagree then, as a Wickipedia editor and contributor, I herby use my one and only Get Out of Disagreement FREE Card, of which I hope and pray you will honor, otherwise, regretfully, I will be left with the impression that this discussion has been and will continue to be futile and thus a waste of time; at least for me, as I have a family who has been starving for affection. Furthermore, it would be saddening to arrive at the conclusion that you might dislike the images, and therefore are biased and prejudiced against them. By chance, if this is in fact the truth or even a possibility of the case?, then, perhaps, you should remove your Free Speech banner from your user page; specifically, since I find that many other, non-Free use images, currently appear throughout Wickipedia; (which still may only represent a percentage minimum, and thus within the Rule of Thumb guidlines) and, perhaps, as a rule of thumb, in my opinion, they might be in need of your attention and abilities, should you wish to attend to them. Lastly, I have made every availible effort to make the unique images, as freely available as possible, for use on Wickipedia, and I kindly request that you do the same, by allowing them to appear and illustrate the discussions and or select minimal articles for the purposes defined above, and within Wikipedia policy, without further opposition, as Fair Use images. Sincerely, Wales 23:59 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Uploaded by Bernd in Japan (notify | contribs). AB, CV, OR, UE. Useless, nonsensical image. It also has iffy copyright status, having been given permission via e-mail. The article that this belonged to is long gone, and for good reason (it being insane and all). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by (Automated conversion) (notify | contribs). OR.- Kimchi.sg 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mr Coffee (notify | contribs). no source/copyright info Deon555|talk|e 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Matthew Samuel Spurrell (notify | contribs). OB, The image has been transfered to Wikimedia Commons as Image:New-westminster.rail-bridge.jpg and substituted in the arcticle. Delete this so Image:Cnr.jpg from Wikimedia Commons can be used in the CNR arcticle 62.167.113.13 09:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cbing01 (notify | contribs). Image:Sam's Town promo.jpg obsoleted (OB) and replaced on the Sam's Town article by Image:Samstown.jpg. BrightLights 10:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tweak896 (notify | contribs). UE Gimboid13 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uploaded by Evilowen (notify | contribs). Pages it's being used on, Evil owen and PHANTOM FEATURES, are about to be deleted under AFD --M@rēino 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Eggy49er (notify | contribs). OR image, the copyright tag is also false as this image was never put out by WWE and comes from his time in ROH due to the blonde hair. Illustrates nothing except the person in question but there are already better images of that on the pages so it's also redundant.--- Lid 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader not notified. Tagging as no source instead. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Supplements (notify | contribs). UE, spam, image used to promote pruduct, see [1][2][3][4]
Uploaded by Sahands (notify | contribs). Fair use image OB by free use Image:BMW M6 LA Auto Show.jpg. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Uploader has deleted warning from his talk page.[5]. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GLVTX (notify | contribs). OR, AB Cortha 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by UH Collegian (notify | contribs). OR, AB Cortha 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is over 100 years old. It is PD. Sarbox 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, UH Collegian (talk · contribs · block log)/Sarbox (talk · contribs · block log)/RJN (talk · contribs · block log). I don't believe I said anything about copyright. Also, please don't remove IFD tags from images while they are being discussed on this page. Cortha 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by UH Collegian (notify | contribs). OR, AB Cortha 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is also over 100 years old. It is PD. Sarbox 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, UH Collegian (talk · contribs · block log)/Sarbox (talk · contribs · block log)/RJN (talk · contribs · block log). I don't believe I said anything about copyright. Also, please don't remove IFD tags from images while they are being discussed on this page. Cortha 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Commanderraf (notify | contribs). Unused and colors are washed-out. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Firstinspace (notify | contribs). OR, AB. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gpatriot1776 (notify | contribs). Image:CICT.jpg replaced with Image:Commander in Chief's Trophy.jpg Replacing copyrighted image with free alternative MECU≈talk 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Rdmudga (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Rdmudga (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, obsoleted by Image:Flag of Baruta Municipality.jpg, conflicting copyright information. —Bkell (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, obsoleted by Image:Flag of Baruta Municipality.jpg, conflicting copyright information. —Bkell (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, obsoleted by Image:Flag of Baruta Municipality.jpg, conflicting copyright information. —Bkell (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Elementerre (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Sod_aries (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, conflicting licensing information, obsoleted by Image:Armando Molero-1.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Toastsupa (notify | contribs). Unused. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, conflicting licensing information, obsoleted by Image:Armando Molero-1.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Orphan, conflicting licensing information, obsoleted by Image:Aldemaro Romero and his hall orchestra 1.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GJRFMorelligu (notify | contribs). Unreadable, no source information, conflicting licensing information. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Hippiefreak758 (notify | contribs). UE, OR BigDT 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_August_3&oldid=1138513589"