Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Vc4000.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

—Angr 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use disputed discussion
Apparently this object is on display in a museum:. It should be possible to obtain a photograph under a free license. --Oden 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if the photographhy in the museum is permitted which would be unusual. --Irpen 08:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The extreme rarity of this object supports it's current irreplacability. Also, the object was removed from production in 1983, 23 years ago, and so the chances of finding one out and about is pretty much impossible. Please note that although the object may reside in a museum, photography in museums is almost exclusively prohibited. Additionally, please note that the "museum" you linked to above is a museum only in the sense that it has pictures and information on old computers. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you'll see that the picture they have is copyrighted by another source. User:Sebbeng 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's another two museums: and  (the second one is a on-line museum). --Oden 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is apparently a free image available at Commons:Image:Interton VC4000.jpg. I will orphan the present image. --Oden 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have listed the Commons image for speedy deletion as a copyvio. It was uploaded from en-wiki Alex Bakharev 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, looks like the Commons image was the same as this image (diff). Here are three more computer museums:  . One lists having bought the console at a flea market for €3, another on eBay for €8. This console was in production for more than five years, so there probably are alot of them still out there. --Oden 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 

False tagging
Contrary to the instruction, the editor supplying the imagevio tag failed to list the tag for a review at Copyright_problems. As per this, I removed the tag. If eager to replace it, do not forget to properly list as required by instructions. --Irpen 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the tag hides the fact that the image was a copyright violation, if the image was not reported on Copyright problems the good-faith act would have been to fix that problem. Apparent bad faith removal of the tag can be considered a form of vandalism (avoidant vandalism). --Oden 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't troll and wikilwayer. Your threats are unimpressive. Either list the image or leave it alone. I don't see it a copyvio and listing the images that I do not feel to be in good faith copyvios is inappropriate. --Irpen 07:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Irpen is under the misconception that the image was uploaded under a fair use license and then tagged as a copyright violation (diff). Actually it was uploaded as PD-self by User:Incognito and I tagged it as a imagevio (diff). Subsequently User:Sebbeng relicensed it under a fair use license (diff). It is always prudent to check the page history before posting a comment. --Oden 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I comment on the page in the current stage wich is the most relevant one. The image cannot be a copyvio and fairuse at the same time. Fairuse implies that the image is copyrighted. Fairuse images are not copyvios. Fairuse claim being valid or not is a separate issue. --Irpen 08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that determination should be left to the processing admin. --Oden 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image was simply mistagged by the original uploader. I applied the correct tag and removed the copyvio tag as it no longer applied. Original uploader was warned for uploading files under incorrect license tags. The copyvio issue has been solved. User:Sebbeng 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)