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: Having read the PUI, the DRV, and this debate, I believe the consensus and policy is that this would not pass our present fair use requirements. There are definitely enough design elements here that by any reasonable definition the image would be considered copyrightable. Whether it's copyrighted VW or the designer of the systems isn't perhaps totally clear. Chick, Peripitus, and Stifle's arguments are solid. When all else is also said and done, NFCC#8 bears in here, so the result is delete. As an aside, given the incredible prevalence of these stickers especially in the United States, it really shouldn't be that hard to get one that we can freely use. rootology (C)(T) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Window Sticker Jetta.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Analogue Kid (notify | contribs).

• This has been previously considered at this PUI debate, and then reconsidered at DRV. The argument that this is not copyrightable (which has been advanced) does not hold water; there's lots of prose text and some design features, all of which would be under copyright. The question is who holds the copyright for a Monroney sticker. (Please remember that image use policy clearly states that the burden of proof is on the uploader to establish that an image is free from copyright, not on this forum to establish that it is not.) That question has not been answered at the previous discussions, and without it we have no source and we cannot even begin discussing whether this is allowable as exempted non-free content. Chick Bowen 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the image is clearly not free, any more than a photo of another corporate document would be, but must be (c) VW US. It's clearly something that has been designed and has original thought and effort, even though it is just a mass produced document. The argument that this does not have significant original content to be copyrightable I'm sure would come as a surprise to those who spent all the time designing the content and layout. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Rather than go back and forth on an unknown copyright status, I am instead going to make a fair use claim as there is no "free" alternative available and it definitely helps to illustrate the subject in question (certainly much better than a picture of the guy who wrote the law).--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused. Why on earth to you need this particularly image. Why can't you just use an image of the Monroney sticket by someone else? Or have you ascertained that no one has or is willing to release a Monoroney sticker under a free license and if not how can you claim it's irreplacble? P.S. Indeed since the law has apparently been around since 1958, isn't it possible that there are stickers who have never had their copyright renewed or whatever? Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for your confusion. The image in question is off of my car taken with my camera. I don't see how using somebody elses would be better. Remember that people don't have to declare something copyrighted for it to actually have a copyright. If you can prove that there are free images available, then please do! But otherwise, fair use is appropriate here.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some clarifications on copyright, since there seem to be several points of confusion. Some aspects of Monroney sticker are dictated by law; these would not be under copyright. Some aspects are standardized by the industry; the copyright on these is probably held by some standardization body, although which one has not so far been determined. Other aspects are specific to a manufacturer, and the copyright would be held by the manufacturer. So in answer to Nil Einne's question, it would be virtually impossible to find a sticker that was entirely in the public domain, even though some parts of it would be. In response to Analogue Kid: who holds what copyrights on the image must still be determined even if a fair use claim is made; my understanding of WP:NFCC is that "I don't know who owns this but I'm claiming fair use anyway" is not an option. Chick Bowen 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm under the impression that Volkswagen Group of America would be the holder of the copyright (if it were in fact copyrighted) so that is who I designated.--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unfree. Can't be used under the NFCC as we are unable to correctly identify the copyright holder. Even if we were, it would fail NFCC8 (significance). Stifle (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. The deletion debate notice was inappropriately removed by Analogue Kid well before this debate was concluded. Chick Bowen 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toxicityle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gracz54 (notify | contribs).

• Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate. As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toxicityfrench.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gracz54 (notify | contribs).

• Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate. As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDelete Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be replaced by the simple text "The French release used the same artwork, with the background and text printed in shades of red" - simply replaced with a piece of text and no need for the image. How does replacing the image with this text significantly decrease reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MeteoraDVD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaptincapo (notify | contribs).

• Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate - text in this case). As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDelete Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be replaced by the simple text "The Special Edition Cover used the same artwork, though in pale blue" - simply replaced with a piece of text and no need for the image. How does replacing the image with this text significantly decrease reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see your point.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Hawk Flying Smoke 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Analayo (notify | contribs).

• orphaned, watermarked - watermark verging on advert (G11) Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. If the permission is sent into OTRS (or found there), then the image can be restored. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protestors marching towards IRS Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astuteoak (notify | contribs).

• Summary says "Photo by Kathy Doucette". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Kathy Doucette is the copyright holder of the work and published it with a CCL with the help of an administrator for use in Wikipedia. No copyright violation.Astuteoak (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For this and the similar photos below, a verification of permission must be sent into OTRS. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• what similar photos do you mean? I'm the copyright holder for GHWBush and M0708 and I'm also the uploader. I believe copyright holders should identify one's actual name, even if entries on Wikipedia are applied with a screen-name. A verification of permission doesn't do anything for those photos.Astuteoak (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what he means is that you have uploaded this image, and the three listed below, with a note that they were made by three different people and the original creator (Kathy Doucette in this case), needs to confirm via OTRS that they agree to release this image under the noted licence. For the two (GHWBush and M0708) that you say are yours, I suggest adding a note on the relevant Ifd sections below and making sure that the image page says "self-made" clearly - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did what you suggest for GHWBush and M0708. The licensing notes and photographers for the other photos are different so we should probably add comments to each photo's individual section, instead of generalizing everything under one photos section and assuming that it applies to all "similar photos". Thanks Astuteoak (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• concerning this photo (Protestors marching towards IRS Building) I omitted the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." tag from the license to aleviate SkierDude's concern. Accurate documentation of the copyright holder and licensing of the photograph remain with the image.Astuteoak (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We still need recorded permission from the author of these images. Did we ever get it back to OTRS from them? rootology (C)(T) 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. If the permission is sent into OTRS (or found there), then the image can be restored. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image80 3 17.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astuteoak (notify | contribs).

• Summary says "Photo by Jeffrey Long". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jeffrey Long is the copyright holder of the work and published it with a CCL with the help of an administrator for use in Wikipedia. No copyright violation.Astuteoak (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See below - uploader is Austuteoak - who is self-id'd as Vic Reinhar. We still need proof of Jeffrey Long's permission via WP:OTRS to prove this claim. Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the correct address to send to OTRS?:

permissions-en@wikimedia.org

I'll try to contact him. I don't believe he is a Wikipedia editor so I want to make sure I give him the correct info.Astuteoak (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• concerning this photo (Image80 3 17) I omitted the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." tag from the license to alleviate SkierDude's concern. Accurate documentation of the copyright holder and licensing of the photograph remain with the image.Astuteoak (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We still need recorded permission from the author of these images. Did we ever get it back to OTRS from them? rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: - Keep - authorship sorted now - Peripitus (Talk) 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GHW Bush CVN 77 Carrier.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astuteoak (notify | contribs).

• Summary says "Vic Reinhart has released the photograph". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The uploader is the photographer and copyright holder of the work. No copyright violation.Astuteoak (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• - I added a note on the image page to clarify that the photo is self-made. (Vic Reinhart is the photographer and copyright holder. Astuteoak is Vic Reinhart's screen-name). So lets remove the tag that the photo is a candidate for deletion. Thanks for your attention.Astuteoak (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: - Keep - Authorship sorted now Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M0708 Hart Senate Office Building 04.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astuteoak (notify | contribs).

• Summary says "Photo by Vic Reinhart". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The uploader is the photographer and copyright holder of the work. No copyright violation.Astuteoak (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• - I added a note on the image page to clarify that the photo is self-made. (Vic Reinhart is the photographer and copyright holder. Astuteoak is Vic Reinhart's screen-name). So lets remove the tag that the photo is a candidate for deletion. Thanks for your attention.Astuteoak (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is self-made and permission was given upon it being uploaded to Wiki. --- W5WMW (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bouldincreekmap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wpcourtney (notify | contribs).

• no source given for underlying map image Skier Dude (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Calculated Use of Sound Reissue Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Notmyhandle (notify | contribs).

• Alternative cover for A Calculated Use of Sound which is identical to the top infobox image except for the colour. Can be replaced by the text "for the Re-release the original artwork and text was kept, with the colours change from black and red to white and black" - as replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Removal of the image does not damage reader's understanding as the free text, and existing non-free image convey the same information (fails WP:NFCC#8) and the extra image is not necessary (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clemsnidebeautifuleu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bdj (notify | contribs).

• Alternative (european release) cover for A Beautiful EP which is identical to the top infobox non-free image except for the colour. Can be replaced by the text "for the European release the original artwork was kept, though it and the text moved, with the colours change from yellow to pale pink" - as replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Removal of the image does not damage reader's understanding as the free text, and existing non-free image convey the same information (fails WP:NFCC#8) and the extra image is not necessary (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:James M. Tunnell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cleared as filed (notify | contribs).

• This Image does not show Senator James M. Tunnell from Delaware, but Senator Thomas A. Wofford from South Carolina. I noticed this because I translated the article about Wofford into German some days ago and wanted to do the same now with the Tunnell article. It is obviously not the fault of the uploader because, however, the pictures in the Biographical directory of the Congress show the same picture on both pages. I discovered the correct image of Tunnell here in the Library of Congress and will upload it to Commons within the next hours. Scooter ^{(this one)} 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black hand2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EmpMac (notify | contribs).

• Hopefully this won't be too controversial. The creator has a rather dubious history, both in image licensing (I can't see what particular tags they used however) and in general and the image is not used at all anymore (it was used in a rather dubious userbox). I have the nagging feeling I've seen this in a clipart collection. And while that isn't evidence and it's definitely possible they created this image, given the history I don't know if we can AGF and given that it's unused seems best to me to just delete it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this editor has had quite a few images that they uploaded as "self-made" deleted as copyright violations. Black Kite 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RWBphoto_1_1_9938.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hero_of_Time_87 (notify | contribs).

• Image is not a work of the U.S. Congress, but a private photo they are using. See this. Kelly ^hi! 14:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is, since it is on the personal website of Senator Burris himself, who is now a member of the Congress. He obviously prefers the current photo until an official Senate one is made, so leave it be. "....posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as www.supportburris.com) Both his official Senate webpage as well as his private campaign use this photo, so that pretty much lays this discussion to rest. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - previous versions of this photo have been deleted, both here and at Commons - see File:RWBphoto.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roland Burris of Illinois.jpg. Image was also discussed (and deleted) at the admin noticeboard here. Kelly ^hi! 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the previous versions made note of the fact that the photo is used on his official Senate page or his campaign website as well. There is no argument here. (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see where the misunderstanding is coming from, but unfortunately the copyright still lies with the original photographer even if a copy of the photo appears on a federal government website. No doubt Mr. Burris will have his official portrait taken soon enough and this argument will become moot. Kelly ^hi! 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, that's incorrect in this case, as the US Senate has seen fit to take possession of the photograph and use it for Senator Burris' personal page on their website. Unfortunately, there is no argument here that the US Congress has also taken possession of the photo as it is the only official photograph of Senator Burris. This argument is moot I'm afraid as the photograph meets the conditions of the license. Once again, "....or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as http://www.supportburris.com) Hence the photograph does not necessarily have to be taken by someone working for the Senate for it to be considered licensed by the US Congress. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any evidence that this picture is RELEASED into the PD because the picture was taken from him when he was State Comptroller of Illinois, so the copyright shall be at the State of Illinois and iirc pictures from state officers are NOT PD. There were numerous occasions when e. .g Biogiude had pictures but from the courtesy of the member, so it was released for use in Bioguide but NOT as PD. Cassandro (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually there is, in the fact that it's used for Burris' personal campaign website http://www.supportburris.com. That's a public website that anyone can access, so again there's no argument there either that it's been released into the public domain. Let's be reasonable here and admit the obvious: both Burris himself and the US Senate are using this photo, it meets the licensing conditions, and there are no grounds for deletion. This photograph cannot be deleted by the laws of the licensing notice it is listed under. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1. A picture which is on a website does not mean that you can do with this picture what you want. An official campaign website can put its content under its copyright.

1. As I said, there were numerous occasions that a newly elected/appointed member of Congress provided an interim picture (until the official government-made pic was taken) to the official website of the Senate and/or Bioguide which was under the member's courtesy, which means: no PD. That's the case in this picture (I did not found any indication that this picture was released under PD. This picture could be used under fair use imo).
2. Let's wait until the official government-made PD pic is released and upload it into Commons.

I say delete. Cassandro (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, I don't think we could use under fair use per WP:NFCC#1, as we actually already have a free image of Mr. Burris at File:BurrisatMidwayAirport.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – true, I forgot we have this picture. Cassandro (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because an image is on a "public website that anyone can access" does not make it freely usable. Copyright is automatically assumed by whoever operates the website. The burden is on you, the uploader, to prove the image is a work of the federal government of the United States, which it is not. It seems to be a work of the Illinois state government or of a private photo studio, which likely means it is copyrighted and not usable here. The Senate website management team is being irresponsible for not properly stating who the copyright belongs to. --Tom (talk - email) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a free image; it was uploaded under an incorrect license. Jonathunder (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This link states that the picture is courtesy of Sen. Burris. Cassandro (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it a free image. Jonathunder (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, did I said that? I voted for deletion. It was just a proof for that. Cassandro (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood. Jonathunder (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're all a bunch of dimwits if you're unwilling to accept that this photograph is the one being used for Burris on all sources taken seriously. I'm voicing my opposition to deletion for common sense's sake, and I think those of you trying to delete the photograph merely don't have enough to do with your time. The picture obviously meets the standards for the license given to it, as it is on official websites for a member of Congress. I'd say the US Senate would overrule any of us here, including the naysayers by a longshot. If the Senate is using it, so should we. The fact that Senator Burris himself supplied the photograph means he's released it to be his official photograph for the time being in the US Senate. And I disagree, it was uploaded under the correct license given that it is on the US Senate's website, if you know where that is. Not to mention that this one looks halfways official, whereas that stupid photograph at the airport looks like some tourist taking a snapshot. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, again:

1. The photo is in courtesy of Sen. Burris ---> He is the copyright holder, so no PD.
2. It's indifferent if the picture is on his campaign website, a website is NOT PD until it releases itself that way. The site of Sen. Burris does not state it. ---> No PD.
3. A photo from the congressional websites is not automatically PD, the office of Sen. Burris did NOT say in a word that the picture is released PD, they just provided it for the Senate websites. ---> That means NO PD.
4. Sen. Burris's official Senate site: that's a form for every freshman Senator, in a strict way, Sen. Burris has no official Senate site.
5. The picture does NOT meet the licence requirements: look at Point 1 (and the picture was NOT made by the US Gov). ---> No PD.

The picture is not a public domain picture, so it should be deleted. (The OFFICIAL Senate photo will be released shortly I think, so let's wait for it.) Cassandro (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hero, please see Wikipedia's policy regarding civility. Do not insult other editors who disagree with you. --Tom (talk - email) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for saying this Tom, but screw all of you. If he's releasing the photograph, he intends for it to be used. He's given it to the US Senate to use, and he's obviously using it himself, yet you are all trying to make up a bunch of bull**** just to not use it, and why I can't honestly see. I'm done with this encyclopedia ruled by the mob, because the mob obviously isn't very intelligent or very professional when they're using throwaway camera photographs in the articles about sitting Senators. I wouldn't trust the article to look up his birthday from the way it looks, it looks like some 7th grader put it together and just happened to snap a shot of him on his way to the airport. Do what you all want, I'm done with this entire encyclopedia, because it doesn't even look professional and it's ruled by a mob that makes up a bunch of false BS to get its own way. Leave it with that stupid shot of him at the airport, see how many people take it seriously. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burris gave the Senate permission to use the photo. That does not mean he gave the whole world permission to use it. What makes you think that putting a picture up on a website means you are either giving up your copyright interests in it or that you are giving blanket permission to everyone to use it as they wish? -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence that the image is free (and the image isn't from the website currently claimed as the source). --Carnildo (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cm cults-koresh ho.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 75pickup (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted image copied from a news source fails WP:NFCC#2 (there's even a "buy photo'" link on the source!). Damiens.rf 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.