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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not public domain as it's a screenshot of a copyrighted video. Also adds nothing to reader's understanding of topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:49, 16 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free magazine cover is not a "unique historic image" (whatever that means or matters) as the non-free-content-use rationale says. It's a magazine cover showing a popular guy being featured on the cover, that's used on Wikipedia to decorate a passage mentioning how popular this guy get. We can pass this message without the aid of this non-free image. (p.s.: The guy in question, Carl Sagan, is overly popular among geeks so expect some ILIKEIT votes here. I'm just a wikipedia-bad-guy doing my clean up work). Damiens.rf 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8: Rationale is "Supports commentary about his celebrity during this time period and mention of Time-Life publication" But to support commentary on his celebrity it could be replaced by a free statement that he was featured on the cover of Time. And the use does not significantly increase reader understanding of of the mention of Time-Life publication; even the cover of that book would not be justified. —teb728 t c 18:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated image description notes that the cover story about his show "Cosmos" is discussed in the article's "Scientific advocacy" section and includes a full text source. The image was not located in that section to better use available space, but could be moved there easily.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would also fail WP:NFCC#8, which allows the use of nonfree content only if it significantly increases reader understanding. —teb728 t c 19:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this image has been added to a number of projects. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in the magazine is discussed, the cover has not sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC #8 at a minimum. That it has been added to a number of projects doesn't make it more acceptable. There is no special exclusion in WP:NFCC for images which are part of projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cover is impliedly discussed. The section discusses his new show Cosmos which the cover story describes. The image and the text, "showman of science" clearly relates to the sourced commentary. In addition, the citation links to the magazine article text.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impliedly discussed? What? The cover of the magazine doesn't describe the show. It's just a picture of Sagan. We already have a picture of him on the article. If you want to cite the text of the magazine's article, that's fine, but that has precious little to do with the cover. There's NO sourced discussion of the cover at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more non-free magazine cover featuring nerd master (and I don't mean it badly) Karl Sagan, being used on Wikipedia just to make the point he was cool enough to be featured on magazine covers. Nothing about the specific image is relevant. Not even the magazine is mentioned in his bio. Nerds and the like will like to keep the image not only because it features Karl Sagan, but also because the magazine is named after the foremost popular Religion among this social group: "Skeptic". Damiens.rf 06:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFCC#8. Rationale is 'Illustrate commentary in section "Posthumous recognition"' The use is purely decorative; it does not significantly increase reader understanding, as is required for the use of nonfree content. —teb728 t c 18:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this image has been added to a number of different projects. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cover has no sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC #8 at a minimum. That it has been added to a number of projects doesn't make it more acceptable. There is no special exclusion in WP:NFCC for images which are part of projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of sourced commentary relating to the image in the "posthumous recognition" section of the article, where it's placed. The entire magazine issue was devoted to this posthumous recognition, as it states in the cover text. The linkage between the magazine cover and the context within the article is definite.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no sourced discussion in the article about the cover. Its absence from the article would have zero impact on the reader's understanding of the subject. That's an abject failure of WP:NFCC #8.

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: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image copied from someone's blog just to show some important event on some important guy's life. Damiens.rf 06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use is purely decorative; it does not significantly increase reader understanding, as WP:NFCC#8 requires for the use of nonfree content. —teb728 t c 19:17, 16 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radon movie still used to decorate a passage mentioning the movie. The visual specifics of the scene are not helpful. Damiens.rf 06:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use is purely decorative; it does not significantly increase reader understanding, as WP:NFCC#8 requires for the use of nonfree content. —teb728 t c 19:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scene portrayed is not discussed in the article. Purely decorative fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scene portrayed is irrelevant to the image's purpose in the context of the article. There is detailed sourced commentary about the film and the actors, which the image is used to describe, and adds significantly to a reader's understanding of the text. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? If there's no sourced discussion of the scene in the text of the article, I could just as well use any scene from the movie, even the end credits, for its relevance to the article text. He was involved in the production of more than 40 movies. Under your argument, since those movies are mentioned, we should be free to include a screen shot from all 40+ movies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query So, how is this image irreplaceable? If it is because there are apparently no images of this person in their relative youth (the era in which they are famous?) In such a case I'd argue Keep since the Shirley Temple exception would seem be in effect (this image or this image can't replace this image; just rephrase in the justification. If you are using the image to show "he appeared in films", them I would vote Delete because you don't even need a picture to show that, only the credits at the end (which are not eligible for copyright). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was rightly pointed out that Lumet is not pictured in this image (I made a mistake thinking he was). However, the basics of WP NFC still have to be met. Without critical commentary (and unless I'm missing something), this image fails our NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sidney Lumet has plenty of critical commentary about this film, both in the lead and alongside the image. As pointed out elsewhere, very little discretion was used when tagging it. In fact a much more relevant photo above, showing him getting his only Oscar, from his most important star, Al Pacino, was zapped after just 24 hours, for being "decorative." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing about 12 Angry Men in Sidney Lumet requires this frame for further understanding. There is no critical commentary in the article about the scene portrayed that would require more than words to understand. Jappalang (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing a movie director at work. The rationale claims the image is possible in the PD. Unless it's shown to be in the PD, it is not usable. Damiens.rf 06:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image is not tied to the text in anyway. Failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image supports the sourced commentary both within the section where the image is used, "directing style and subject," and subsequently in commentary about both the film and the star actor shown in the photo, including a quote by Al Pacino about Lumet's directing. The link between the photo and the article's context is substantial, and will significantly increase any readers understanding of the article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. With no sourced discussion of the image in the text, it's connection to the text is utterly absent. You're using inference to suggest a connection between the two, facts not in evidence. YOU think it's relevant. Where's the sourced commentary to show its relevance? Answer; absent. Response; failure of WP:NFCC.

Delete: This does not show any directing style; Pacino stands there with a blank look, the image bears no relation to "channeled that New York skeezy vitality", "captured that New York vibe", or "as if he were staging a documentary, letting his actors square off like random predators, insisting on the most natural light possible, making offices look as ugly and bureaucratic" at all. Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2011 (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: Keep. The (English translation of) the source implies all images were "donated" to the Polish public archive by the author, but no definite license can be determinied or is asserted. Judging by the presence of more images by the same author from the same archive on Commons, I am going to asume ((PD-Poland)) applies. — Edokter (talk) — 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of an ancient British politician. It's most likely that some old PD image of him exists. Damiens.rf 06:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Description rationale is correct. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a dead person, we usually permit a non-free image for depiction. However, in this case the person in question was an MP in the British government for 19 years. An image produced before 1957 by the government would be public domain. I'm quite confident there's SOME picture out there of him from his time as MP that was taken by someone in the British government. ---Hammersoft (talk)

Can you explain the basis, using WP guidelines, that requires someone to find a PD image based on that kind of rationale? Your statement could also be made of any well-known celebrity, sports figure, or politician. I've never seen anything remotely close to that kind of "delete" justification. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain. This British politician was a rather well known MP for nearly 20 years in a time period where any images taken by the British government of him are, by definition, in the public domain. See Template:PD-BritishGov. Is your argument that with nearly 20 years of service the British government took no photographs of him whatsoever? Most certainly the UK National Archives have images of this person. Just because a PD image of him is not conveniently located online doesn't mean we permit a non-free image. And no, this doesn't apply to any "celebrity, sports figure, or politician". It's a specific case, for an individual from a specific country, in a specific time period. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the thing you are missing is WP:NFCC#1; it wasn't explicitly mentioned here. We are not permitted to use a non-free image if a free equivalent exists. —teb728 t c 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that expand the #1 guideline beyond all limits, since #1 does allow use "where no free equivalent is available," not "exists?" I always assumed that by "available," it means in the Commons, not somewhere on planet Earth. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. For example, for living individuals we don't accept non-free images for depiction purposes because a free licensed alternative can be made. The same principle is being applied here. With zero effort on the part of anyone to examine the UK national archives, we're presuming a free photo can't be found and therefore we must accept this non-free image. I don't accept that. A British politician with 19 years of service during a time where British government images from that period are decidedly public domain almost certainly has a free image available of him somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend revising the #1 guideline to something like, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, could be created, or could possibly be found to exist somewhere else."? On the other hand, it could be simplified to "Non-free content can never be used." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, #1 already says everything it needs to be said. We don't use non-free content where we can reasonably expect to get free content that serves the same purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It states, "where no free equivalent is available." That's a lot different than "can reasonably expect to get free. . ." If you're honestly claiming this apparent redefinition, it will be brought up on the copyright questions board. Otherwise a deletion rationale like your earlier one of expecting someone to search the "UK National Archives" to find a free one first will undermine the non-free and fair use standards for WP.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable that you would be misled by the wording. It's hard to craft an iron clad policy that is instantly understandable in all respects to all comers to the policy. It's hard, but to gain full understanding of the entire policy, it's important to understand that the entire policy has to be taken as a whole, and not with an eye towards a particular passage that seems to support a use. That, plus you have to understand the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|underlying guideline]. Further, an understanding of accepted practices, which takes long term exposure to these issues. The NFC issues are complex, and not readily understood by most. Finally, it's important to understand our m:Mission within this context. We're trying to create a free content encyclopedia. We strive to avoid non-free content use as much as possible, while still remaining encyclopedic. With all that in mind, the idea of retaining a non-free image when nobody has even tried to contact the UK National Archives for a photo of him is frankly (and not directed at you) preposterous. If this were an actor from the same time period, I wouldn't bat an eyelash about retaining a non-free image of him. But, he's a public figure, with 19 years of service. It's everything but guaranteed there is a free image of him available. Find it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a free image rolls around, we can always replace it, but we shouldn't remove an image solely because "I think there might be a PD image". — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should. And this is how we work here. We're not the world's greatest source of free content by chance. --Damiens.rf 08:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damiens, I realize this is how you work, but that doesn't mean what you want=what everyone else has to do. If you claim "that's how we work here," you need to back up your claim with at least a guideline or policy. Moreover, since there is no guideline or rule which states we should remove images when a user thinks there just might be a free alternative, I see NO justification for removal at this time. (in fact, WP:NFC states the opposite ("Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."). I find it quite unreasonable to expect a non-free image to be replaced by a free image that may or may not exist; your assertion also meets none of the criteria in WP:NFC#UII. As for the rest, I think the US Patent Office might beg to differ, and keeping or deleting a single non-free image will not increase or decrease our quantity of free images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see that there are accessable (physically not via the net) images of him from one in 1898 when as a 2 yr old he was photographed next to Queen Victoria, a large number of images of him published in the Wiltshire Gazette and the Wiltshire Herald from 1924 through to at least 1939 and other images of him giving public speaches. All that time in a public role with all this evidence that he was photographed and we have to debate about whether a free image exists ? Peripitus (Talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) See below - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows him in uniform, next to another uniformed man, and he is receiving a government document (new Polish constitution, I think) from a Polish government official. Shouldn't this photo be assumed to be PD? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Image appears to meet all qualifications of ((PD-Poland)), much like other photos by the same author already on Commons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those commons licences are correct (and I've only looked at a couple) then this image is probably, as you state, PD. From the translation I can read I think that this is a valid conclusion. Changing to Keep as ((PD-Poland)) - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

((PD-Poland)) seems to depend on the place and time of publication though, and we don't seem to know anything about that, do we? If it was first published in the UK or somewhere else, I don't see how Polish law would come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 26 May 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.

However, since this image and the next 10 were all tagged over just 9 minutes, no time could not have been devoted to any of these image notices. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale, copy and pasted on several images, says:
  1. This image I copied from the Internet is a publicity image from year 19XX.
  2. Some publicity images from this era were never copyrighted.
  - Conclusion: This image is PD.
While it's good news that some publicity images from the 60ths are PD, we can't use that as an excuse for using any publicity image from that era. --Damiens.rf 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they fail to post a copyright notice on them, we certainly can: images from that era without copyright notices it fall into the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to tell, from a digital version of a photograph, if it has been firstly published with or without a copyright notice? Guess work not accepted. --Damiens.rf 08:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a copyright notice on the photo? I don't see one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor_Dean,_James.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can review a similar image here, which indicates that it came from the Everett Collection. A scan of their film-related images, like this one, shows that most, if not all, are publicity-type images.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still relying on supposition. We do not have direct evidence that this image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such "direct evidence" for publicity images is almost never possible. As the image rationale indicates, such images are assumed not to have a copyright, and without evidence that they do have one, it's reasonable to consider them PD on a legal basis. For typical vintage movie photos, Copyright is what requires "direct evidence," not PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using a mass blanket to cover all publicity photos from the time period on a per image basis is inappropriate. You do not know for a fact the image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Attempted rationale on image page misplace the context the material it is quoted from. Honathaner's quote is incomplete (missing words in bold): "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted."[1] Wolff's quote does not declare no copyright for publicity stills, but simply that items in archives tend to be "orphaned works" and care (copyright notice, registration, etc) is needed to ascertain the copyrights.[2] Mast's quote tells the same. Finally, Thompson is arguing about fair use, not copyright.[3] All in all, the onus is still to prove that the still was published (instead of being kept in the studios archives for all these years) without copyright notice or renewal. Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the studio kept these and they were "recently discovered", I do not find it reasonable to assume that they were kept all these years; they were publicity photos and would very likely have been used as such (unless otherwise noted). Since this image has no copyright notice it falls into the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misplacing the burden of proof. --Damiens.rf 08:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, YOU are misplacing it. Pre 1977 it was the burden of the studio/artist to demonstrate copyright by labeling such picture (often by a stamp). Since then, copyright law indeed HAS changed, but that law didn't apply then. I can only prove that the image in question does not have a copyright marking on it as required by law. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:30, 21 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor, Elizabeth (Cleopatra).jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a screenshot of a copyrighted film and, as such, is still copyrighted (in this case, the copyright notice is plainly displayed in the film credits). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely a typical movie still like this one and this one, all very similar promo images. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor-Summer.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. Further, this was published in a book in 2003. If that was the first date of publication, it completely changes whatever notional copyright situation may have existed for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common Taylor image seen throughout the web. It was also published many times before that book.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it is common around the web doesn't free it from copyright. If it was published before the book, fine, but again still doesn't clear it from copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for a source pre 1978 (PD) or even pre 1963, simply ask.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to provide it, not make the reviews have a guessing game. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the studio kept these and they were "recently discovered", I do not find it reasonable to assume that they were kept all these years; they were publicity photos and would very likely have been used as such (unless otherwise noted). Since this image has no copyright notice it falls into the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there proof there is no copyright notice on its rear? Is there proof that the image was first distributed to the public in this form and there is no copyright notice? Dirty Harry publicity stills were published as lobby cards, all with copyright notices,[4] and momento photographs of those stills were later distributed/[5] It goes against the precautionary principle based solely on the front of a publicity still or the failure to investigate if they were first published in any other form. Image use policy specifically requests uploaders to Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Where is the information that states this image was first published in this form without copyright notice anywhere? Jappalang (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove that and neither can you. We can only prove what is in front of us. I personally don't give a damn about a Dirty Harry lobby card since it isn't what we are talking about here. I am only addressing this specific image, not the meta discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference book the image came from has over 500 publicity-type images. It includes standard head-and-shoulders portraits, the type stars gave out with autographs, along with standard movie stills, which are posed, (not screen captures,) for use in posters, lobby cards and press kits given to publications to generate publicity. I've seen and owned hundreds of those and the most they ever had on the front was the film name, star names, and studio name. The backs were usually blank, although I had some really old ones that had a mimeographed blurb about the film. They never had a copyright symbol and date, which was required, along with registration. As the image rationale makes clear, there was never any purpose or benefit to doing so. A "reasonable presumption" is required, not absolute "proof." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did this book explain anything with regards to the copyrights? Which book? Was the book copyrighted? Each one of the photos should have been referenced in some manner as to their source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is copyrighted (see image description page) and each photo had a byline with the movie title, studio, and date. The only implied reference to anything more was in the back of the book where a minimal number of "credits" were listed with individual photographers names. I did a search on Amazon for the book, and was surprised it's not even listed, although a few others are by the same author/publisher. The book's copyright would no doubt only cover it as a "compilation," which is allowed a separate copyright. But these images are clearly not. The fact that the book isn't available can only mean one thing: I'm never getting rid of it! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which really doesn't help us. Does it have the year the photo was taken associated with it? If so, that is indicative of a copyright date IAW most citation methodologies. I'm really thinking this one is copyrighted since it was taken from a book (no matter what the original source). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has 1959 written in the caption, along with the studio name and movie title. It's a typical movie still. What most of the deletionists don't realize is that movie directors almost never allow the outside press, especially photographers, anywhere near a movie set. They don't even allow stars to publicly discuss a film with the press, especially during the studio system days. Related publicity photos for that film can be seen here. The studios would only allow their own in-house photographers to shoot photos like these for later use, such as for their movie posters. I almost became one of those. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sounds like an "if-then" without the "if" explained. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor-Newman-Cat.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. Further, this was published in a book in 2003. If that was the first date of publication, it completely changes whatever notional copyright situation may have existed for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same response as above photo. Just ask.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a typical cinema website that shows publicity images. If you scroll down to the fifth one, you'll see the image. This image has also been used in many publications as a stock publicity image for the film. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the image you reference is not the same one as listed here. Contrast [6] and [7]. So again, you're using inference. Still no credible assertion that this particular image we're discussing here is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor-Montgomery (A Place in the Sun).jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image has been re-tagged by the uploader as being non-free. Fair enough. The problem is the image is being used without any sourced commentary on the image. It's being used decoratively, and has no direct tie to the text. That's a blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This childhood image supports a large section of sourced commentary about her childhood. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which says nothing about this particular image. I.e., it's not tied to the text. Having sourced commentary about her childhood doesn't give us clearance to use every non-free image about her childhood. It has to be tied to the text via sourced commentary about the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, "failure of WP:NFCC #8," which doesn't require that the "particular image" must be tied to text, but "contextual significance." The entire section is about her childhood. Your comments imply that a childhood photo of her playing on a swing could only be used if the text discussed that exact photo of her on the swing, not just her childhood.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a discussion about this very point currently ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#Defining_critical_commentary.... There's a frequent stance taken by people wishing to retain non-free content to look for slivers in policy to permit their particular image. That's the wrong approach. The correct criteria is to make sure all aspects of WP:NFCC are met. This is a failure. As with many of these images and as I've commented several times before, there's no tie between the image and the text. Just because we discuss her childhood doesn't give us leave to use non-free content showing her as a child. If that were how we handle non-free content here, there'd be absolutely no limitation whatsoever, except within the bounds of law, to the inclusion of non-free content. So long as we make a vague reference to a time period, a movie, what have you, we could include non-free content. Obviously that isn't the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Early years is talking about the specific nature of this photograph that would require illustration. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Stevens-george.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2011 (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: Keep per BQZip01's exhaustive search. Since Appel and Haken have reliably proven that everything reduces down to a couple thousand cases and that their computer program works (cf. the Copyright Office is a reliable source), and their computer program has actually checked everything (cf. BQZip's search), the burden of proof is now on those who wish to disprove the theorem by providing a counterexample (cf. proof the copyright was renewed). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor, Elizabeth 10.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid rationale; no longer in copyright. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No listing appears under US copyrights. Since it is in that year group=PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you check that? --Damiens.rf 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [8] — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, what did you search for? How do I find a specific photo there? One that I can't name the photographer or the date of publication? Honest question. I don't understand much about copyright renewals. --Damiens.rf 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just typed in "Elizabeth Taylor" and looked at all 64. It's pretty straightforward. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it just that? What if the image was registered with the name of the character she was depicting? What if it belongs to a collection called SuperPics and the collection was renewed as a whole? --Damiens.rf 04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then YOU look. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this photo has complied with copyright law in the US. I've shown you where I looked and how I looked. Since the subject of a photo was required for copyright registration, it is reasonable to assume her name should have been used. I cannot prove a negative, but I have done a reasonable cursory search. If you can prove I'm wrong, I'll happily support deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand: The photo was taken about 1942. Suppose hypothetically the copyright was registered that year; then it would be due for renewal in 1970; suppose hypothetically the copyright was renewed that year. So why would you expect to find the renewal in a catalog for 1978 to present?! —teb728 t c 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - All those still under copyright should be in those records because you were required to renew the copyright every 5 years to keep it active (up until 1978). You could stop doing so in 1983 (5 years after the law went into effect) because you didn't have to refile after that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe you are mistaken; do you have a reference for that? The Copyright Act of 1909 provided for a copyright term of 28 years with a 28 year renewal. Are you thinking of the provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 that allowed compliance with formalities within five years of publication? (discussed at United States copyright law#Examples) —teb728 t c 11:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. I guess you are right (learn something new every day). I'm not quite sure where I got that. However, in order for this image to be copyrighted, it would have to possess a 28-year copyright in 1942 and again in 1970. Since the copyright would have been activated in 1970-1998, it should be on the copyright rolls. Since it isn't, it is not copyrighted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer the 1 + 1 = 2 method - much easier. You look at the picture, which has a lot in common with this one, already deleted, and then you read the rules. If you try that, you'll be struck by a feeling of instant enlightenment, and will notice an urge to go back and restore all those images you first thought had "untruthful" rationales. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your rationale, when put in math terms, is better described by "since 2+2=4, 1+3=4 and 3+1=4, x+y is most likely 4 as well". --Damiens.rf 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you lost me on that "most likely" equation. Maybe something even simpler would be the prima facie test, aka duck.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor, Elizabeth 21.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. Further, this was published in a book in 2006. If that was the first date of publication, it completely changes whatever notional copyright situation may have existed for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an earlier source, just ask. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to provide it, not make the reviews have a guessing game. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a copyright notice visible? If not, it fails and is PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it was not printed on the verse of the photo? Or right bellow it, and was cropped when the digital version was created? While it would be great if this image was really in PD, your wishful thinking isn't helpful to the project. --Damiens.rf 09:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know one didn't exist. Don't be so condescending. I don't wish one way or another (your comments that my inputs are "wishful thinking" are misplaced and quite rude), I am commenting strictly on the merits of the image in question and the law. Indeed, if someone cropped off the copyright or specifically omitted it, then they are guilty of copyright infringement, however, it is not reasonable to assume that every photo pre 1977 is copyrighted just because you personally don't see a copyright and you think the back side might (your assertions are speculation and a view of the back side of the photo is not required to prove that the photo is or is not copyrighted). You should assume good faith and move on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:38, 21 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Taylor-Rooney-Velvet.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. Further, this was published in a book in 2003. If that was the first date of publication, it completely changes whatever notional copyright situation may have existed for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as above photo. Just ask. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to provide it, not make the reviews have a guessing game. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dispute over the "publicity still are PD" claim is moot ("13-yr-old actress Elizabeth Taylor posing w. saddle horse after her smash movie debut in 'National Velvet'"). This is not a publicity still. Peter Stackpole worked for LIFE. Jappalang (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Shearer, Norma 17.jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not entirely correct and misapplied in context?" Since your comment was pure cut-and-paste like the others, you need to explain this. If you look at the photo, you'll see it's a posed publicity portrait of a famous movie star, the subject of the article, used for the lead. "Misapplied in context?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you read the rationale, you'll see that none of it is original research and all are from reliable sources, none of which are "untruthful" or "untrustful." The source either states where it came from as a publicity image, or the image itself makes it obvious, ie. posed portrait of person staring at the camera.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since when are quotations from three different reliable sources a type of original research? Nominator needs to pay attention to the page before nominating. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lengthy claim at File:Day, Laraine (My Dear Secretary).jpg#Copyright_details contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is not entirely correct and misapplied in context (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16#File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg). Proof still needed for failure to comply with copyright law for this work. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not entirely correct and misapplied in context?" Since your comment was pure cut-and-paste like the others, you need to explain this. If you look at the photo, you'll see it's a posed publicity portrait of a famous movie star, the subject of the article, used for the lead. "Misapplied in context?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted as F5 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover being used to illustrate what a given living person looks like. Damiens.rf 07:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His notability is based on the events described in the book, not his good looks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See WP:NFC#UUI#9. A book cover used only to show what the person looked like. Even if it were placed next the discussion of the book, the cover itself is not the subject of sourced discussion in the article. —teb728 t c 04:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify that before a book cover is added to an article discussing the same book, that the commentary must discuss the cover itself, as separate from the book? That kind of requirement seems odd, since I have seen many book covers, record album covers, magazine covers, and even movie posters, none of which discuss the actual cover or poster as something separate. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, see WP:NFC#UUI#9 for a guideline on unapproved uses of unfree book covers. If other stuff exists, please nominate it for deletion. —teb728 t c 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then another cover of the book without the photo is OK? There are other language versions, including English, that may not have his photo.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With or without the photo, “if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.” (There is wide consensus that another permissible use, with or without the photo, would be for identification of a separate article on The Man Who Broke into Auschwitz.) —teb728 t c 02:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book is discussed, but not the cover. No need to have the cover on this BLP article. Further, the subject is alive, making a non-free image of him being used for depiction purposes replaceable. If there's sourced commentary regarding the cover itself, then it could be kept. As is, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced commentary is the book's title. The photos on the cover are incidental to the image, and not relevant to the text, as the rationale states.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if we mention a book it's ok to include a cover? Is that your argument? So there'd then be no prohibition to include book covers on bibliographies then, right? Unfortunately, wrong. That's not how it works here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the project allows copyrighted images for articles about a book, film, or video game to identify the subject, the article for this image is not a book, but a person. The article does not talk about the cover of the book (its layout or artwork); thus, there is no contextual significance either for this image. Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, for the love of... Crop the damn top photo (which is a gov't PD photo and/or certainly was available prior to 1977 and falls into PD) and just show that image=problem solved. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state the photograph is a government work that is PD? A photograph of somebody in uniform is not necessarily one taken by a government employee. Reporters, friends, relatives, and photography studios can easily take one as well. Jappalang (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed it isn't, but it certainly falls into fair use then, doesn't it? You cannot re-create how the individual looked 65 years ago. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per suggestion, the image was cropped and used to replace book cover for Denis Avey article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped version is File:Avey cover photo.jpg. The present full cover should be deleted and the cropped version decided on its own merits. —teb728 t c 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 24 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random non-free movie still used for decoration. Damiens.rf 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image supports the commentary and is not a decoration.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless it can be shown to be PD): Use is purely decorative. It does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about his dual role as actor and producer is perfectly understandable without using the photo. —teb728 t c 06:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's understandable by text, but the image adds absolute proof, which is more than decoration.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The photo provides no indication whatever that he was the producer! For proof of his dual role as actor and producer cite the China Syndrome entry at IMDB. —teb728 t c 02:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image proved he acted in a film that he also produced, per section title. The point is that it served to help illustrate the subject, and was not pure decoration. It was not just a random photo unrelated to the subject. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scene is not in any way tied to the text of the article. Superfluous non-free addition. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "scene" is irrelevant to the purpose of the photo. It's to show him acting in a film which he also produced, and supports the commentary directly. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Great! Could you please point out the section that is directly tied to the image such that the image's absence would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of Michael Douglas? Was there something significant about his beard? Maybe it was his folded arms. Or perhaps the plaid shirt? I don't know. I must be missing something because I can't find any cite that supports the importance of this particular scene. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seeing Douglas with his arms folded in a scene from the film does not give any "support commentary about Douglas as actor and producer" that text cannot convey. No critical commentary about this scene is found in the article. Jappalang (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free movie still used just to make the point the actor discussed had an important role on this barely mentioned film. Damiens.rf 07:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image illustrates the commentary relating to this "type of role" as stated in the section title. It is a definitive type of role, and the image is clearly for publicity purposes. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless it can be shown to be PD): Use is purely decorative. It does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about typical role type is perfectly understandable without using the photo. —teb728 t c 06:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the image meets all subjective criteria, voting to delete it despite the fact that all the images tagged were done within a minute of each other, obviously without due consideration, is effectively voting to "reward" the blitz-tagger. You see nothing wrong in this clear violation of ethical guidelines, since you've said nothing about it, but yet take to the time to delete, and thereby reward and probably invite more such negative behavior. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Decorative fair use. There's nothing in the image itself that is discussed in the article, just that Michael Douglas was in Fatal Attraction. We know that already. Superfluous non-free addition. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film used for the image is irrelevant to the purpose stated in the rationale and shown by it's placement in the article. It shows him in a particular type of role, which is the subject of the sourced critical commentary. It can not be described by words alone and is used in the context of the article. It should significantly increase any reader's understanding of the subject discussed in that section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is emblematic of this type of role for Michael Douglas, I'm sure there'd be cites that indicated this image is emblematic. Unfortunately, such cites are rather conspicuously absent. I.e., you're asserting original research that this image is emblematic. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see nothing in the article that requires illustration by this image to support further understanding of the text. Nothing talks specifically about the scene in this image. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (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: Keep; There is no support for deletion (even by the nominator) Non-admin closure by — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of this guy. Damiens.rf 07:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are no photos of "this guy," only paintings.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On a second though, the someone said on the image description page that this photo is from 1900. If this can be confirmed, the image would be PD. --Damiens.rf 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the source stated in the description. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Painted portrait is not an equal for photo image. – George Serdechny 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. This image must be free. The guy is loooong dead. --Damiens.rf 12:58, 18 April 2011 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image. Used to decorate the article the event is depicted. Damiens.rf 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Image is necessary to support the "personal life" section commentary describing his marriage to Zeta-Jones.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Use is purely decorative. It does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 In both articles the text about the wedding and 10th anniversary is perfectly understandable without using the photo. —teb728 t c 05:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, this fails NFCC8 about as obviously as it gets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The photo is not discussed with sourced commentary in either article in which it is in. Pure decorative fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fut.Perf. —Eustress ^talk 19:47, 20 April 2011 (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: moved to Commons. The vectorized signature is accurate, and due to concerns about scalability, actually preferred. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of an already existing image, the uploader just changed the extension of the image and uploaded the same and obsoleted the existing image Prajwal ^talk 13:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Who says it hasn't changed? I have not only changed the format but also enhanced the image quality, reduced the image size from 28 KB to 10 KB, made it at par with other signatures, and also increased the image size from 140px to a possible 2000px. Also, I have given Prajwal due credit at the summary of the new and better image. Rather, the older and worse file should be placed for deletion. GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2011 (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: Keep - issue has been resolved - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file uses the logo of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation in the background, which is copyrighted by the Corporation. No fair-use rationale has been provided for the same, and given that this is a map, use of the logo as background decoration would not satisfy fair-use requirements. SBC-YPR (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall make the required changes as soon as possible. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image seems ok now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 20 April 2011 (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: Keep for use in My God, help me to survive this deadly love, remove from Kiss, remove from Erich Honecker. The goalposts were moved during the debate with the creation of the first, there is virtually no support for its use in Kiss and little for its use in Eric Honecker when we have the freely licensed satirical version. I do note that the paragraph in Eric Honecker that makes reference to the imagery is sourced to a blog (hardly reliable), that the rationales for use in the two article's I've removed it from were frankly poor, and that I wonder if the satirical version is truly freely licenced given its derivative nature. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails fair use rationale, similar to #8 at WP:NFC#UUI, an article about this incident would justify the image, not a general article on kissing CTJF83 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This RfD is a response to posting of a conflict of interest for the user, and an RfC for the user's edits, at Talk:Kiss#Kissing image placement. It's an obvious and wrongful misuse of the RfD board. Even if there is a legitimate rationale for deleting the image, the timing of this request is tantamount to gaming the system.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, I wouldn't have noticed this picture if you hadn't been so adamant about moving the gay kiss image. Either way, an image that fails NFCC fails it, whether it is brought up now or later, still fails. CTJF83 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epic fail!. Per Fair use rules, this image is used by the section "Contemporary practices", we live in contemporary times, definitely it can be replaced by free media. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love how they indicate the free alternative in the fair use rationale... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we might have an odd problem here: if the original photograph is copyrighted, and the graffiti was created as a derivative work from it and placed in the public space without authorization from the photograph's authors, is it actually legal for us to invoke F.o.P. on it? But if we decide to be not so anal about that and keep the mural, then I'd argue the point about the "iconicity" of the kissing for the Eastern Bloc mentality is served even better by the mural than by the original. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This picture is historically famous in and of itself, iconic for the Cold War: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] ^walk victor falk^talk 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then create an article on it, then we can keep the pic. The point is, the fair-use rationale for Kiss doesn't cut it, the fair-use rationale for an article about these 2 kissing would cut it. CTJF83 11:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as pointed out below. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current use completely fails WP:NFCC#1. In a article about the "event", another discussion will be needed. --Damiens.rf 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this in the Erich Honnecker#In popular culture. (FUR: "This picture became an iconic symbol of the Cold War, of the relations between the URSS and its satellites and of Breznev-era gerontocracy in particular.") ^walk victor falk^talk 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F088809-0038, Berlin, East Side Gallery.jpg is free and basically does the job. CTJF83 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for the kiss article, but not for Honecker's. It could also be included in Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet satellite. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not suitable for the subject of kiss. The picture is iconic itself and the subject of great attention which would qualify for an article. ATM it is included at Erich Honecker as an irreplacable capture of the event under discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I didn't want to vote, but since most of the rationales so far seem to miss the point, IMO, I'll vote. The reference to kissing between men is mentioned in the article as a customary greeting in certain cultures. Who the men are is irrelevant, so the political rationales seem off topic. They could have been any two men anywhere. The irony is that the "gay kiss" (per the other image's description and User:Ctjf83's description of it) is not discussed anywhere, nor even implied. Obviously, the sexual orientation of a person is as unrelated to the purpose of a kiss (see article's section headings) as their race, height, hair color, profession, favorite sport, political leaning, or whether they have a job. A photo of two men kissing, (whether greeting or affectionate), wouldn't be called "two attorneys kissing," or "two mathematicians kissing," for instance. Their personal life is irrelevant. That's why User:Ctjf83's first caption, "gay kiss," changed to "tongue kiss," now something else, and calling those who move or remove the image either "homophobic" or "heterosexual," has twisted this debate away from the article itself. Men greeting each other with a kiss is relevant to the commentary; gays kissing is not. If User:Ctjf83 can add sourced material describing a "gay kiss" as unique in either methods or purposes, then he should do so to support his image. Otherwise the existing Breznev image is the only one of two men that appears relevant to the commentary. Changing the caption on such an obvious "gay kissing" photo does little. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you going off on a long unrelated tangent about other photos? The main point I made is this image could have been replaced with a free image on Kiss, because it only showed a kiss, and wasn't described in detail in the article. Now that it is on Erich Honecker, it has more reason to be kept, not sure enough to keep it over the free image File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F088809-0038, Berlin, East Side Gallery.jpg though. CTJF83 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion over which of the mural or the photograph ought to choose should take place at Talk:kiss. Regardless of the result, this image should be kept as it is in the Erich Honecker article and could also possibly be included in Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet satellite as I point above.^walk victor falk^talk 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stongest keep. The image itself deserves detailed coverage in a separate article. Check this and hush. – George Serdechny 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, here's it: My God, help me to survive this deadly love. – George Serdechny 13:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 too because this non-free image is replaceable by the public domain image of the painting which essentially shows the same thing especially as the prose describing the painting can plainly point out it is based on a photo, so making the need for the non-free image unnecessary. The photo can be linked to with an external links. ww2censor (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Artistic reproduction, such as painting, can not be considered an equivalent to photo taken in course of official event. It's a reproduction. Feel the difference. – George Serdechny 06:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an iconic image. (The photographer's name, Régis Bossu (article in German) needs to be added to the image page if it is kept). I don't buy the "replaceable" argument, else commons:File:7WarLoan.jpg would be a replacement for Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. So anyway, this image is better than some other non-free images and should only be deleted on the happy day when we delete all non-free images. Captions should include the name of the photographer, though (else this is as bad as album covers not mentioning the name of the designer: all of those should be removed immediately). —Кузьма^討論 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how about building an article for it? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There already is: My God, help me to survive this deadly love. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest keep. At least under the Erich Honecker and other Soviet history entries.It is indeed iconic of these times. - Jardeheu (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That an image is "iconic of these times" it does not follows we can use it in a number of Soviet history entries. We should write an article about the image's iconic role and use it just there. --Damiens.rf 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another red herring. So what? If it is appropriately used in even a single page on WP, then you should quickly be !voting keep. Other inappropriate uses should simply be dealt with on WP:FUR, not here on a FILES FOR DELETION page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic photo necessary to understand the context/history of My God, help me to survive this deadly love. Iconic photo of the cold war used in proper contexts=Keep. Others can simply be removed along with rationale(s), but just because it is inappropriately used one or more times, doesn't mean we should remove ALL instance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's essential to My God, help me to survive this deadly love as well as useful to other pages. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (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.

File:Sara RFPTS.jpg

File:Sagan in Time mag 10-20-80.jpg

File:Sagan in skeptic magazine.jpg

File:Lumet-Award.jpg

File:12 angry men1.jpg

File:Lumet Dog Day.jpg

File:Cazalet - Grabski.jpg

File:Taylor Dean, James.jpg

File:Taylor, Elizabeth (Cleopatra).jpg

File:Taylor-Summer.jpg

File:Taylor-Newman-Cat.jpg

File:Taylor-Montgomery (A Place in the Sun).jpg

File:Taylor-child.jpg

File:Stevens-george.jpg

File:Taylor, Elizabeth 10.jpg

File:Taylor, Elizabeth 21.jpg

File:Taylor-Rooney-Velvet.jpg

File:Shearer, Norma 17.jpg

File:Day, Laraine (My Dear Secretary).jpg

File:Avey cover.jpg

File:Douglas-China Syndrome.jpg

File:Douglas Fatal Attraction.jpg

File:Pissarro-portrait.jpg

File:Michael Douglas wedding.jpg

File:Signature of Priyanka Chopra.svg

File:Bangalore metro map14.png

File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg