Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanB DanD (talk | contribs) at 17:05, 16 September 2007 (→Image:Justinpicture1.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 13 September 15 >

September 14

Image:TransLink (Brisbane) Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mathieumcguire (notify | contribs).

Image:Vlad draculea.png

Image:Vlad draculea.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Codenamecuckoo (notify | contribs).
  • The subject of the image is unrecognisable, the image's uploader has had many other image issues, the image has no fair use rationale for it being used in any article and since the image is such poor quality, it should be deleted. Spawn Man 04:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cillawiki.jpg

Image:Cillawiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beachscott98 (notify | contribs).

Image:EVILEMON.gif

Image:EVILEMON.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mrc0x (notify | contribs).

Image:Zomgseisurface.gif

Image:Zomgseisurface.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mrc0x (notify | contribs).

Image:Cyspringshischool.jpg

Image:Cyspringshischool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Donthurtmylove (notify | contribs).

Image:Prolet novgorodskoe delo.jpg

Image:Prolet novgorodskoe delo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mirko Tomic (notify | contribs).

Image:НД Антонина Алиса.jpg

Image:НД Антонина Алиса.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mirko Tomic (notify | contribs).

Image:Hottrader infrastructure.JPG

Image:Hottrader infrastructure.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HotBridge (notify | contribs).
  • diagram for non-notable commercial trading app

Image:42ndDivisionYpres1917.jpg

Image:42ndDivisionYpres1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Rcbutcher#Image:42ndDivisionYpres1917.jpg listed for deletion|Rcbutcher]] ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rcbutcher|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Rcbutcher|contribs]]).

Image:Raja.hussain.jpg

Image:Raja.hussain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raja Hussain (notify | contribs).

Image:Wombiro.jpg

Image:Wombiro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Allianceboys (notify | contribs).

Image:SevenOlympicExtra.jpg

Image:SevenOlympicExtra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stickeylabel (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free television screenshot violates WP:NFCC#8 because the television program it illustrates is barely mentioned in the article Digital terrestrial television in Australia. Including this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of digital terrestrial television in Australia. —Angr 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The image encyclopedically enhances the GA class article. An entire section of Datacasting and Digital Multichanneling was created with collaboration with several other users; this image was chosen as it clearly allows readers to understand the concept of digital televison enhancements broadcast by digital terrestrial television in Australia. The image has an appropriate and succinct fair-use rationale that complies with WP:FU, and the image is supported by a caption that complies with WP:CAP. Stickeylabel 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There is no better way to explain the issue of Datacasting in Australia than a screenshot of it in acion. There is also no problems with fair use of the image, and I can see you are biased against fair use images by your userpage. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My personal opinions don't change the fact that this image violates Wikipedia policy. It is not being used consistently with its own tag, as it is not being used in a discussion of the specific program it illustrates. —Angr 09:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for expanding on your reasons, I now understand that the rationale was not specific to the context in question. I have therefore amended the fair-use rationale in order to comply with fair-use. Hopefully the deletion tag can therefore be removed. Stickeylabel 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You changed the rationale, but not how the image is being used. It's still not being used to discuss the program depicted. If you wrote an article about the Seven Network's coverage of the Olympics, the image might be fair-use there. —Angr 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Minakatti.JPG

Image:Minakatti.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brummiesteven (notify | contribs).

Image:Flight of the Pixies.JPG

Image:Flight of the Pixies.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snootchie44 (notify | contribs).

Image:Rs hurst startrek.jpg

Image:Rs hurst startrek.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fish4bananas (notify | contribs).

Image:Cmyos logo.jpg

Image:Cmyos logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maxeboy (notify | contribs).

Image:Cmyos screen.jpg

Image:Cmyos screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maxeboy (notify | contribs).

Image:Justinpicture1.jpg

Image:Justinpicture1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SqueakBox (notify | contribs).
  • There are so many reasons to delete this!
  1. It is a photo of a living person claimed as fair use.
  2. It is taken from a commercial site that charged for the use of its content, and ownership has not been released.
  3. That site was, as it happened, an ILLEGAL SITE which was in the news for providing ILLEGAL CONTENT.
  4. The subject of the photograph, Justin Berry, was involved in the site both before and after he turned 18. The photograph is undated. It may or may not show him as a minor.
  5. Photographs of minors presented in a sexual context have been found to be illegal child pornography even when they do not include nudity.
  6. This image is claimed as notable because of its sexual context - advertising for a child pornography website.
  7. If the photograph is NOT itself illegal, then it is commercial content that Wikipedia has no permission to use.
  8. If the photograph IS illegal, it's...well then...it's illegal.
  9. All of this aside, concerns have been expressed by several editors, including me, that Justin Berry is not individually notable. I have proposed and received support for making the Justin Berry article a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald. That may already have happened by the time this IFD is considered.

So...it's a non-free photograph of a living person who is marginally notable. And it might be kiddie porn. DanB†DanD 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a snapshot, taken in a public place, of a fully clothed person doing nothing even remotely interesting in a McDonalds. I think "might be kiddie porn" is a huge stretch. Hermitian 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "might be kiddie porn" is a huge stretch. "Replaceable non-free image of a living person", on the other hand, isn't a stretch at all. —Angr 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why such a boring image was used as advertising for an underage pornographic website then, and why a photograph of a living person that shows "nothing remotely interesting" is important enough that it's justifiable to copy it without permission from a commercial site and treat as fair use. DanB†DanD 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion. My upload was to crop the now deleted ImageJustinpicture.jpg which was outing a person who worked at McDonald's and was pictured with Berry. I agree with Dan's arguments, SqueakBox 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problems with this nomination are many, some subtle, some so at variance with the facts as to beggar belief.
  1. It is a photo of a living person claimed as fair use. What Dan leaves out is that it has a valid fair-use rationale that meets FU which has previously been reviewed. It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable.
  2. It is taken from a commercial site and ownership has not been released. That's the definition of fair use. The photo was watermarked by the (defunct) site in question until SqueakBox cropped it out of the photo.
The site charged for the use of its content. This photo was used as a free promotional image that was posted on the unpaid section of the site, as well as being posted to newsgroups and message boards as a form of advertising.
  1. That site was an ILLEGAL SITE which was in the news for providing ILLEGAL CONTENT. That's as may be, but this image isn't an illegal image. The point is mostly correct but irrelevant to this discussion.
  2. The photograph is undated. It may or may not show Justin Berry as a minor. At last check, self-published images of late teenagers aren't illegal, nor does policy prohibit their use.
  3. Photographs of minors presented in a sexual context have been found to be illegal child pornography even when they do not include nudity. Another mostly correct, but irrelevant point. This image has no sexual content or context whatsoever. In the original image, Berry is standing behind the counter at a McDonald's restaurant in Mexico. He and the woman he stands next to are fully clothed and there is not insinuation of sexuality between them.
  4. This image is claimed as notable because of its sexual context - advertising for a child pornography website. A misleading statement. The image is notable in the context of Berry's fame as the "star" of a pornographic website. It has no sexual content and is not, in & of itself, part of any sexual context. This is an exercise in guilt by association.
  5. If the photograph is NOT itself illegal, then it is commercial content that Wikipedia has no permission to use. A restatement of #2 above. That's why it's used under a claim of fair use. Making the same point twice doesn't double its effectiveness.
  6. All of this aside, concerns have been expressed by several editors, including me, that Justin Berry is not individually notable. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of deleting this image. If the article is deleted, then the image goes away as fair use content not used in any article. It is not in any way a reason to delete the image separate from the article.
This nomination appears to be a case of forum shopping when the nominator was unable to gain the advantage in a content dispute in the article. This image has been viewed and reviewed by a number of editors and admins. Its fair use rationale is solidly within policy guidelines. This nomination treads the fine line as to whether it is in good faith. --Ssbohio 01:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and by whom was the fair-use rationale reviewed? DanB†DanD 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go back & find out for you. Alternatively, you could check the GFDL history of the image. But, the GFDL history was wiped out when SqueakBox uploaded the cropped photo as a new image and didn't preserve its history. So, let me look in my talk page archive amd see if I still have the bot notice or any other comments. --Ssbohio 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of priority removing the Mexican worker due to BLP privacy concerns has to be treated higher than keeping the site identifying watermark (and it was impossible to remove the worker and keep the watermark without manipulating the photo rather than just cropping it). Interestingly the original was then deleted, I assume speedily, which is another mark against it being fair use (ie it was deleted as non fair use. So tnhere is a strong argument that this should be speedily deleted, and especially given that once the BLP concerns have been met we dont even have the site watermark, SqueakBox 02:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Squeakbox, at the risk of being obtuse, could you explain the reason why the McDonald's worker pictured was a BLP violation? Was s/he doing something vulgar? Is working at McDonald's shameful (it would be for me, but that's subjective)? Presumably, s/he was simply in the background and was not named. My personal feeling is that to claim BLP violation is over the top, and that your deletion of the image has caused problems now, since you didn't preserve the history. Please be more careful in the future, and perhaps run suspected BLP violations by the Biography project or an admin before taking such drastic actions in the future. Jeffpw 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, that's a disingenuous statement. The reason it was deleted, as the deletion log states, is "Unused unfree copyrighted image. (WP:CSD#I5)." In other words, in the article (Justin Berry), you replaced that image with the cropped image, so that the original image was no longer used in any article; Therefore, it wasn't keepable as fair use anymore, an issue you created entirely by your own action. You caused its deletion, and now you speak of the deletion as though you were an uninvolved bystander. The image had a valid fair use claim until you orphaned it. Your words are contradicted by the deleting administrator's; The deleting administrator's words match the facts; Whom should I believe? How do you explain what you said & implied above in light of that? --Ssbohio 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a replaceable nonfree image. "It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable" is a totally spurious reason for keeping a nonfree image of a living person. As for legality, I pretty strongly doubt any reasonable court would consider this image child pornography, but that's neither here nor there for Wikipedia's purposes. —Angr 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it depicts Berry as he appeared when he was running his pornographic websites, not as he appears now, the image is not replaceable. That is the essence of fair use, and no amount of unsupported claims that it's replaceable will make it so. I could not take a picture of Berry now and use it to illustrate what visitors to his website saw then. They did not see a child in the conventional sense, and that information is as important to the reader as are Berry's allegations, of which the current Justin Berry article is largely constructed. --Ssbohio 14:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does he really look so terribly different as a 21-year-old than he did as 17-year-old? And even if he does, is seeing what he looked like as a 17-year-old so crucial to understanding the article? What difference does it make what he looked like then? How does this image show that website visitors "did not see a child in the conventional sense"? The article does not discuss that claim at all (which is good, as it would almost certainly be original research); in fact the article never discusses Berry's physical appearance, either at the time, or now, or how it may have changed between then and now (which is good, as it would almost certainly be totally irrelevant). The image is not supporting any commentary at all, it is being used only to show what he looks like (I use the present tense intentionally), and is therefore replaceable with a current free image of him. —Angr 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity when this section is reviewed: User:Ssbohio is actually the original uploader of this image and the author of its fair-use rationale. Some time ago, User:Squeakbox cropped out another individual and the logo of the porn site from which the image was taken and re-uploaded the cropped version, preserving User:Ssbohio's original rationale.

DanB†DanD 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear if this doesn't get deleted I am so totally uploading about a billion non-free photos of living people that I will assert are irreplacable because even though they can still be photographed, they can never again be photographed at that particular special moment in their lives. DanB†DanD 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_14&oldid=158308321"