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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Image is only used in a list of winners of a championship, failing NFCC#1 (replaceability; in this case by text) and NFCC#8 (increasing readers' understanding). Stifle (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (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.
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.
This is quite a strange one, so bear with me. This image of James McLean was uploaded back in 2006 by MadMax, who hasn't edited since May 2007. It's gone through several different licenses and fair use rationales. Currently it is tagged as a mugshot, although it does not look very like one to me. It was listed on PUI back in November last year, but was delisted since fair use images are out of scope there.
Most recently, we received an OTRS complaint (OTRS agents can view this at Ticket:2009011510014644) that the image was in fact copied and cropped from a website [1] (second image on that page), that it is not a mugshot, and that its use in James McLean is not fair use as it is not used for illustration of or critical commentary on the book in question.
In either case, the image is copyrighted and non-free, so that is not in question. Up for discussion here:
Is the image McLean.JPG the same image, or does it originate from the same image, as that at [2]?
Is the image McLean.JPG indeed a mugshot/booking photo? If not, is there another appropriate tag at WP:ICT/FU that can appropriately be added to comply with NFCC#10b?
The image at The image at [4] is before I removed the crop marks, which were grease pencil. It's obvious the Wikipedia is a copy of this image, other than damages to the photo the image is identical. This is NOT a booking photo. Booking photos are not taken outdoors, this is an outdoor photo. It is also not used as fair use as this photo is used as part of Buddy McLean's biography. To create a new justification for use as fair use regarding Paddy Wacked is paper thin, but I expect it next.
The bottom line is someone stole this image and posted it, along with lies. I've been trying to have this removed for years now. Do the right thing and end this crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.142.112 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've received further correspondence at the OTRS ticket that indicates to me that this image is indeed copied from that site. It is now clear to me that the image could not possibly be a mugshot, so I am deleting it per CSD:I7 (patently invalid copyright tag). For the avoidance of doubt, it also would appear to fail NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities). Other OTRS users are welcome to review, and users in general may list at DRV if they feel it is appropriate to do so, but should bear in mind that the likelihood of this image meeting WP:NFCC is poor. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2009 (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.
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 discussion was: The result was delete. The consensus was that NFCC #8 applies here. The lone event the image depicts wouldn't require a fair use image to display under that, as per especially pd_THOR, Sandstein, and Peripitus's reasoning. rootology (C)(T) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that seems to be your subjective opinion that the image is insignificant but it certainly is as it depicts the subject in question. Obviously it's not absolutely essential but there is no other way to depict the UNSC resolution if you want to depict it.--Avala (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the original uploader, I am disappointed to see that someone uploaded a higher resolution of the image I had uploaded, which was only 180x120. The fair-use copyright under which I filed the picture is still relevant as a historical event and the United Nations Usage Guidelines allow fair use. I have reverted the image to the 180x120 resolution. Problem solved. It actually looked better at the smaller resolution anyway. Coreywalters06 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image I uploaded was not the same image, my image came from the official UN photo site at www.unmultimedia.org/photo/ and the UN image usage guidelines were clearly stated. Your revert of the image means the UN photo usage guidelines no longer apply as I don't know where you got the first, uselessly-small image. --Joowwww (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image adds significantly to the article as it not only shows the votation of the article's subject but adds greater clarity and understanding of the entire Security Council process. --Joowwww (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as failing NFCC#8. Any free image of the security council could show the council's processes and this image of the council with a few hands in the air tells the reader nothing that the numbers in the info box doesn't. Votation is an interesting new word - Peripitus(Talk)06:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image's purpose seems to have already been supplanted by libre text in the article (WP:NFCC#1): "It was approved by the United Nations Security Council with 14 member states supporting the resolution and one abstaining...", serving no further purpose than to duplicate that already freely-licensed information. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 06:16, 21 January 2009 (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.
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.
Can someone please clarify? CC-Sa-3.0 is no longer (or never has been?) acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia? I am FUCKING FED UP with image notifications on my talk page. Honestly, am I at fault? Or are licenses offered on the list for upload that should not be? I want a straightforward explanation of what licenses can be used, and DELETE THE REST. This simply makes me change the license, which will not be difficult in the instance, but I always try to do my due diligence. - RoyBoy23:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CC-By-SA is a free licence, so keep. If the uploader is also the author, the description should make this clear. Sandstein 09:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. The photo was taken and permission given by John Pisciotta, Pro-Life Waco, Co-Director. As management for Pro-Life Waco he waived copyright. - RoyBoy21:04, 17 January 2009 (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.
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.
Keep The uploading comment is "(author: rick reilly source rick reilly uploaded by: kellen reilly)". That seems pretty clear; if you have something more specific than "What in the word makes this PD?", I think we should take the uploader at her word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the uploader's word. How can "Rick Reilly" be the author and the subject? Where did the author released it to the public domain? --Damiens.rf12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He can be the author and subject by use of a time-delay photograph, a standard feature of many cameras. The author probably told his wife that it was okay to upload it with a public domain license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kellen reilly (the uploader) is the subject's daughter and smaller versions of the image have been used elsewhere (news articles) with that attribution. Given it's a raw out-of-camera image and not webscraped I have no doubt the attribution and licence is correct. - Peripitus(Talk)21:20, 21 January 2009 (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.
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.
Keep If this image was created by him with his camera, presuming standing on public property (sidewalk,street,etc..) how can this be a derivative work? Even if he wasn't on public property I can't see how the image of a building could be "copyrighted." Unless I'm totally missing the point here? Raeky (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2009 (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.
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.
It is a free image; I made it and I'm making it free. I reproduced the dust jacket as it is very difficult to get. Reading the article will tell everyone this. Because the dust jacket is difficult to get and thus scan; I decided to reproduce it and make it available to Wiki. Hopefully there is nothing wrong with that. There also needs to be more of a rationale to put on this on a deletion page. Simply saying it doesn't appear to be free is not enough.FrankWilliams (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify how you created the image? If you took a photo of the dust jacket, it's not free. If you took a photo of the building, it's fine. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2009 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Seems very unlikely this is an original work. I don't believe the user has been editing in good faith or shown knowledge of our copyright policy. A file with EXIF info or a larger image might settle my uneasy. I know this isn't necessarily a valid reason for deletion, but I have a strong feeling this image is a copyvio. I found one instance on a webpage already [5], but I believe that image may have been posted after it was uploaded here. Just wanted to see if I'm being too suspicious. Andrew c[talk]00:01, 17 January 2009 (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.
![[3]](http://rope.wrko-am.fimc.net/bulger/06.23.04.buddy_mclean_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0608g.jpg){kind=link}