Uploaded by
Live Forever (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) TV screenshot from a news show for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the news show (racist vandalism). There is no commentary on the news show itself or the TV station itself. Nor, for that matter, does the description page even tell us what news show this screenshot came from, failing
WP:FAIR#Policy #10.
BigDT 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete -The file name suggests
racism.
Tonytypoon 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that the filename is actually just the English translation of the vandalism displayed in the image. At any rate, that itself isn't a huge concern ... there's no way to rename files, but we can always reupload it, then delete the old one if such a need were to ever arise. The real problem is that taking a screenshot to illustrate the subject of the screenshot is never fair use.
BigDT 00:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The station is BHT1, the state television, and the show is the general news program Dnevnik ("the Daily"). The problem could easily be avoided by using the picture as an example of Anti-Bosniak sentiment's prevalence in modern Bosnia-Herzegovina, as reflected through its media. For instnace, "A Dnevnik newscast from BHT1 shows anti-Bosniak graffiti in Banja Luka. The phenomenon frequently comes up in local media", or something like that.
Live Forever 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
SlimVirgin (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Non-free image of
Ron Karenga, the founder of
Kwanzaa. The image description page has no rationale, but cannot be speedied because it was uploaded in 2005. This picture is taken from
[1] - a website that deals with African American history. There is no reasonable fair use justification for this image.
BigDT 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
is there a copyright tag on the image?--
HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Xohol (notify |
contribs). orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, insufficent information to determine encylopedic use
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - confusing description.
Tonytypoon 08:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - no use for advantage, and the description is confusing.
Alex43223Talk |
Contribs |
E-mail 07:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Johntornad (notify |
contribs). orphaned image, 1 of 2 edits by user, was added to the BMI article, but reversed 4 hours after addition.
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
keep- The image and the description makes sense. Should be an usable image.
Tonytypoon 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Alibenjamin.abbasi (notify |
contribs). orpahned image, absent uploader, while tagged as GFDL, the text added by uploader negates that, "Made by me don't youse without my consent"
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Gistfinley (notify |
contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, possible CV as it appears to be a cropped headshot, similar subject images speedy deleted per talk page
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Holzers (notify |
contribs). orpahned image, similar subject images previously deleted per talk page, believed to have been used in a deleted non-notable article on subject
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - the image makes no point.
Tonytypoon 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - Image not matching the description fairly, and there is also a bottle and a white box meaninglessly.
Tonytypoon 08:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pornographic and commercial.
Tonytypoon 08:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - but note that being pornographic nor commercial are valid reasons for deletion. My !vote is because it has no license (it would be fair use anyways), the content of the image or the DVD itself was not discussed in the article when added by the uploader and finally it is currently orphaned.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
These photos taken by
DarkFireTaker (
talk·contribs) all have rater glaring photo credits embeded in them in violaion of
Wikipedia:Image use policy. I asked him to upload non-watermarked versions about a month ago, but he does not seem to be around anymore (he's only made one edit since then), so I guess we should just delete them. Most of them at unused anyway. --
Sherool(talk) 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Than217 (notify |
contribs). CV, LQ - Compiling video/images that belong to others into an animated gif does not make one the owner of such material, nor give you the right to "release it into public domain". Anyway, use of this graphic violates
Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages. — --
Aude (
talk) 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - Confusing summary.
Tonytypoon 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It - It's fair use, which some seem to find confusing. —
Slipgrid 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Fair use where? There is no fair use claim, no fair use rationale, in fact there is not even any use (or source for that matter)... --
Sherool(talk) 09:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The lack of a fair use claim doesn't mean that it fails a fair use test. It's a historic event that can't be repeated. As for a source, I believe it's a CNN video, but I'm not sure. I didn't post it.—
Slipgrid 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - GIF was made by user who has obviously self-released into public domain .. whats the problem?? --
maxrspctping me 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Converting someone elses work into an animated GIF does not produce a new copyright, the user is basicaly trying to remove all rights from someone elses work. Only the person who actaly shot this footage (or those he may have sold the rights to) have the power to release this or any other derived works into the public domain. --
Sherool(talk) 14:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
It falls under fair use or it should be considered as having been altered enough (no longer a news clip) and therefore a new piece of work.
maxrspctping me 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
No it's not even close to beeing a unique new work. If you want to claim it's fair use go right ahead, but there are scertain formatlities that need to be adressed per Wikipedia's rules if you do (such as, you know putting a fair use template on it, writing a fair use rationale, giving the real source (who hold the copyright to the original fottage) etc), without with it would still get speedy deleted within a week. See
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media. --
Sherool(talk) 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Seanmwa (notify |
contribs). OR, uploaded by user for an autobiographical page that was deleted several times over. UE as well.-
Metros232 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
C.byron (notify |
contribs). AB, animated GIF of book titles, indivudal static images would be preferred to better address copyright images and useability for the reader
MECU≈
talk 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Hector2 (notify |
contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, only used to add to unrelated article, questionable PD claim
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Crabasa (notify |
contribs). orpahned image, uploaders sole contribution, insufficent information to determine encylopedic use
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Well I agree it is low quality but I didn't realise it was still around. The article it was part of was deleted a long time ago. --
Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Thepuglife (notify |
contribs). OR, UE, probably used on a deleted article, minimal contribs by user
MECU≈
talk 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Frajesca (notify |
contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH, only 2 contribs by user, both listed here
MECU≈
talk 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Frajesca (notify |
contribs). OR, UE, WP:NOT a FFH, only 2 contribs by user, both listed here
MECU≈
talk 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - this image is not an orphan and as such, notice should have been applied to the article where the image is used - part of the three step process of IfD nomination. I have added the tag.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - this image is not an orphan and as such, notice should have been applied to the article where the image is used - part of the three step process of IfD nomination. I have added the tag.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - this image is not an orphan and as such, notice should have been applied to the article where the image is used - part of the three step process of IfD nomination. I have added the tag--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
GoldenWolf16 (notify |
contribs). UE, OR, Image used on CSD A1 article since deleted, uploaded blanked the page to remove previous CSD attempt by me
MECU≈
talk 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Top_Gun (notify |
contribs). "Image from AP" yet tagged no rights reserved, likely imagevio
MECU≈
talk 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - this image is not an orphan and as such, notice should have been applied to the article where the image is used - part of the three step process of IfD nomination. I have added the tag.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - I stubled upon this image, which I find to be the most apropriat for the article if not the best, at Yahoo news, it was an AP photo, it was dated December 8, 2006, I tryed finding that specific news article again to add the source from where I uploaded it but couldn't find it again. I do not understand that much which tags should be put with which picture, but I think that this image shouldn't be deleted because it is realy good for the article in which it has been put. I think that other users have also uploaded images from the Asociated Press so put a tag that fits this image, but I can not put the source of the image, I tryed to find that article again but just couldn't find it.--
Top Gun 23:26 28 December 2006
Comment -
I have changed the tag to this one which I think is more apropriat.
{{Non-free fair use in}}
Rationale: Website publishes photographs with no apparent attempts at copyright, no loss of commercial viability, photographs seem to have been implicitly released for widespread public consumption with no interest in authorship rights, no suitable alternatives available to illustrate the subject.