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 debate was
Speedy keep - this is a borderline disruptive nomination, given the number of pages (thousands) it is transcluded upon. Will(talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is used in a large number of pages of female individuals where no image is present but one could be possibly obtained. The lack of comments here is due to the incomplete nomination: no ifd tag has been placed on the image page, which I just did. Tizio 14:53, 14 March 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic. Appears to be a vanity pic, using Wikipedia as an image host. Not linked to any article, can't think of an article it would be used in. Kesh (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a PNG version of the image instead, which is the preferred format. SVG would be best, but I have no way to convert the EPS from the press kit to that format, so PNG it is for now. —JeremyBanksTalk 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, reads like a school report rater than a ensyclopedic article (seems like a mainspace article on the same topic got PRODed) and it's actualy a Word document that's been renamed, not an PDF. Sherool(talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, Wikipedia is not a how to guide, those intersted can to to their homepage and download it there. Sherool(talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, probably unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was Delete -- Copyright status not sufficiently established
Image taken from a website that doesn't indicate whether the images are free. Consequently, the image should be considered non-free, and therefore replaceable. Addhoc (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a flat black background and perfect lighting around the head, it looks like a studio photograph and probably came from a family collection when they (or whoever) put up the support web site. Copyright belongs to the photographer, not us, and not whoever is claimed in the Wikipedia credits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
This is pure speculation with no apparent basis in empirical evidence. скоморохъ 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't speculation with no apparent basis in empirical evidence. This is a rustic fence post, but that is not natural lighting. The background is not outdoors, it is a flat black matte. This is a posed shot from a print studio. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Sorry I didn't include it properly before, but I had it confirmed by GreenScare.org that their pictures of individuals have been given by others (or the individual in question) and are specifically released not to them, but the public domain. They are an ELP support network, like the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network, and have confirmed that the use of the pictures relating to or of ELF activists are for any use, hence why they are featured in indymedia portland and other support networks. TomLovesCake (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Danielmcgowan.jpg picture for similar example.
This is a case for copyright to be established through WP:OTRS or other verificatory channels, and until then, we should assume good faith on the part of TomLovesCake, who has made constructive contributions. скоморохъ 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of this users (and past incarnations of this user) image contributions have been deleted. I would not call that constructive. He fundamentally does not understand copyright: "the pictures relating to or of ELF activists are for any use." Copyright belongs to the creator, not the subject or perpetrator. Several weeks of this demonstrate this user cannot be trusted to upload images in good faith. This is why the dozens of news media (complete with watermarks) images that ALF/ELF distribute on their websites get deleted from Wikipedia. They cannot claim copyright simply by being the subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Firstly, not the majority of the pictures I have uploaded have been deleted, please don't just say things which aren't true, it's slander and is resulting to personal attacks, something wikipedia encourages users not to lower themselves to.
If you go to ALFlist, you will see the 75KB+ worth of information and 20 odd pictures was well resourced, and thus needed little editing from other users.
"the pictures relating to or of ELF activists are for any use."....this is exactly what everyone else says about the ALF, and it is because it is taken for granted ALONGSIDE the concept "unless otherwise copyrighted".
In this case, I have contacted the user, and they aren't otherwise copyrighted, they are for public domain. There is no other reason the images are on these support sites, other than to be public domain, ELF activists don't encourage people to publicise their images and photos, only once they've been caught, this is why.
"This file is in the public domain, because ALF images are all in the public domain", which was not uploaded by myself. Again, you will see it has been taken for granted the statement "unless otherwise copyrighted", which is this case it isn't, because it is been confirmed by email from NAALPO.
This is the same scenario. TomLovesCake / talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi скоморохъ, the image previously had a speedy delete tag, which I removed before listing it here. I agree the OTRS route is probably the best way to prove the license. Addhoc (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this image came from a portrait studio it doesn't matter if the maintainer of the website, the person in the photo, or someone at NAALPO says it is public domain. It won't be. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I understand this could be a "professionally" taken picture, no doubt, but there is nothing to suggest that somebody else would own the rights to the picture, other than McDavid himself, who has released it to his support groups/networks. I added the link to the NAALPO version, which is the same, and its clear that NAALPO, green scare and their support groups have confirmed that the images are public domain. The activists (or their supporters) are surely smart enough to choose pictures to use which aren't copyrighted. Please re-look at the Rod Coronado photograph, this has been updated in exactly the same way, through NAALPO, which I have added the link to on the image page.
Please don't assume that just because it's a professionally taken photograph, that it hasn't been specifically produced for support groups/networks, or chosen because it's one of their best pictures; and they own the rights to their own photograph. TomLovesCake / Talk
The Rod Coronado photo does not look professional. Copyright is someone elses legal claim. "Nothing to suggest that somebody else would own the rights", is backwards. Copyright always exists, and to be legal, Wikipedia needs clear and convincing proof that Wikipedia may use the photo. Professional photo studios do not give up copyright. All those school photos from grade school? Copyrighted. You could not upload those photos of yourself to Wikipedia. That is the status of this photo.
"the activists are surely smart enough to choose pictures which aren't copyrighted." is absolutely false. In browsing all these activist sites recently it is obvious they don't know and don't care about copyright. They scatter media photos, watermark from tv intact, in with everything else and they say "we give this away as public domain." They don't own the rights to do that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
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.