Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 14



File:Dianeschuler.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Non-free content

Unacceptable uses:

6: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Mfield (Oi!) 04:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

bro, who teh fuck cares, the fair use rationale I used for the diane schuler image was a close verbatim copy of somebody else's fair use rationale for some other photo of a dead person that was found on a news site.

only difference is that the person (whom i used the fair use rationale argument) still has his so-called non-free content photo up on wikipedia, while mine is to be deleted soon. fair? no way. so go fuckign delete this photo. i'm finished wiht wikipedia. please delete my other photos. I have contributed other original content in the form of high quality photos (not some shitty point and shoot snapshots) to wikipedia, yet i get stymied by uncreative pencil pusher admins and such. PLEASE DELETE THE PHOTO AND MAKE ME HAPPY. Lucky dog (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(I'm just going to ignore the above remarks) I don't know the ins and outs of the policy, but my impression is that a privately-taken family photo that's given to the AP is different than a photograph taken by an AP photographer for a story. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the former situation should be subject to the same copyright restrictions as the latter. Then again, a lot of copyright/fair use/free use stuff doesn't make sense to me, especially as it's applied on Wikipedia. All I can say is that I think the picture is relevant to the article, as the article is about an auto collision caused by this woman and the vast majority of the collision's coverage has been about trying to figure out the inexplicable motivations for how this woman caused the crash, and it's impossible for some brave Wikipedian to go take his own crappy camera-phone picture of her, because she's dead. Propaniac (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is unquestionably a non-free image. The only question is whether it meets Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. To me, it clearly meets 9 of the 10 criteria, the only question being #8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case, I don't see how an old photo of her contributes to an understanding of the crash. A non-free photo of the crash itself would be a different story. cmadler (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I just happened to run across a site with such a picture (of the crash site, anyway) here, if that's beneficial. But I still think a picture of Diane Schuler is of value in understanding the topic, because the reason the topic is notable is the dispute over whether this woman could be the kind of woman who would guzzle a bottle of vodka and smoke marijuana while driving a van with five small children coming home from a family camping trip on a Sunday afternoon. (I've just drafted a write-up of the investigation which is currently at User:Propaniac/schuler until I can format and insert the references and move it into the article, just in case the information there might better aid discussion over the picture's relevance.) Maybe that justification's not good enough, but that's my opinion. Propaniac (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for pictures for the article, I think that crash site photo is much more appropriate than the photo of Schuler. It's possible the the photo of Schuler will make more sense in the article once you format and insert the addition from your userspace. I think we have to base this decision on what the article is now, not what it could be in the future, but you could certainly re-add the photo once you've expanded the article. cmadler (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: right now this image totally fails WP:NFCC because the reader's understanding of the crash is not enhanced one iota by the inclusion of this image. Indeed a crash site image would likely pass NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Bro who the fuck cares" You know what, we do care because we care about copyright. There need to be sound and defensible reasons for the fair use of copyrighted imagery, you don't just get to chose an image, copy someone else's FUR and think that it will apply equally in every situation. There is a specific criteria that covers the non use of agency images and the image you uploaded is obviously watermarked Associated Press. If you don't get it and you think that your contributions are that important that you get to ignore community policy then you are misguided. You seem to have some frustrations for whatever reason but please don't start lashing out at other people. You are free to leave the project but images you have freely licensed and contributed will not be deleted, the licensing is irrevocable. Mfield (Oi!) 16:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the comments from ww2censor and AnomieBOT, I removed the image from the article (that use fails NFCC 8) and then requested its deletion as an unused unfree image. cmadler (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:92_wx_1156.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Number plate design... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Russ12.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Image clearly says King Kong - Not a self as claimed... Looks like movie promo shot :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:PsimolophouNicosiaMap_1.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks very like a Google Map, Possibly (C) note in Bottom right... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a microsoft/bing map, so should be speedied. I found the virtually identical map but without the directions and have nominated it for speedy deletion as a simple copyvio. Note the Microsoft watermark in the bottom right corner. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Station.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

At (PDF) on page 43 of the PDF, listed as page 37 of the printed version. This photo has been used by Kappa Kappa Psi in printed materials since at least 1997. I find no indication that the organization or photographer (unknown) has ever released this under a free license or otherwise given permission for its use. Note that I tagged the image as a possible copoyvio in May 2007, but either neglected to add it here or no action was taken at that time. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.