< July 22	July 24 >

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be free use. I removed it from the article it was in because it wasn't put in any meaningful context. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:32, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source given is Philosopedia, and there is no source information on the Philosopedia page to derive the actual source from. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:04, 23 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a photoshop job it's got minimal encyclopedic value. Also, the source images are not specified, it's just "pics from Commons". Sven Manguard Wha? 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This pic is an indication of the way that the building was intended to appear. The facade without the spires is still magnificent, but has always appeared unfinished. The option is to transfer it to Commons and use it in the article. Finding the two files that the facade and spires were taken from is easy. The spires are from a photo of Chartres. My own pic, if I remember rightly.

Anyway, I'll take a look on the article page of Wells Cathedral and see if it would be appropriate to include it. Amandajm (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: Having taken a look at the article, Wells Cathedral, I intend to expand the section on architecture. In that context, this picture would be useful. I suggest moving it to Commons, bt I'm not sure how this is achieved. Amandajm (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe upload it there and let this copy die here? (Not absolutely sure; I've lost some of my familiarity with image procedures.) But I'm not sure if semi-speculative things like this are in line with the rules and guidelines? I mean, an image like this might be in an encyclopedia I was creating from scratch, but it's definitely a borderline case if we consider Wikipedia guidelines. Ab e g92contribs 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it then. I've got it sitting on my desktop, so I won't lose it. Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 29 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable legitimacy. No metadata, uploader has no other contributions. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't really given, "Byrons book" - which book? who is the artist? It's also orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not familiar with it, but I presume it should be on this article - which also mentions the Byron book - Wager Mutiny. - Gregg (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book this image is taken from is --- Byron, John. Narrative of the Hon. John Byron; Being an Account of the Shipwreck of The Wager; and the Subsequent Adventures of Her Crew, 1768. Second edition, 1785 --- I have an original copy of this book, but am travelling right now, therefore you will need to wait for the provenance of the sketch, I'll get this when I return in a few days, however it is around 230 years old, so would be surprised if copyright can be exercised. Oberon Houston, 25-07-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a video clip, probably not uploader's work. Even if it were, it has no foreseeable encyclopedic value and is of low quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not (based on the summary) appear to be the work of the uploader, does not appear to be free. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:12, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unlabeled graph. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:50, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source is "Private collection", but the image appears at this site which has no release. Permission is "commons" but I don't see the image on Commons at all. Currently orphaned, and Villa Rusciano is well illustrated. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot from what appears to be a defunct wiki, no indication that GFDL release is accurate. No article on Village Voyage. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Permission is "Granted via email from Dr. Salvador Martinez" which is not OTRS logged. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the license page for the source site this can only be used for non-commercial use. On top of that, the copyright holder probably is Leonardtown, Maryland, not this flag artist. Finally, with two versions of the flag on that site, with the other one being marked "Version per county code", I'm not sure this is even accurate. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:37, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good faith effort, but what they're trying to do is better done using wiki markup. Delete and tell the uploader how to do it the right way. Ab e g92contribs 17:26, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:48, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, redundant to File:Performancepyramid.svg, no chain of attribution needed. Acather96 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, redundant to File:Barelling.svg, no chain of attribution needed. Acather96 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, used in a now deleted article, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eww. If I were a girl, I'd be thouroughly creeped out by that portrait. Also, delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity photo for use in resurrected Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers (just speedied db-g4). Won't somebody please think of the children. Gurt Posh (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it out unless someone's making a seriously good faith effort to find sources and bring it up to encyclopedic standards in userspace. Delete unless said unlikely scenario happens. Ab e g92contribs 17:22, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to File:Ashford CT lg.PNG Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in userspace, unencyclopedic. Acather96 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it would be some sort of realistic representation of a juice extractor, but seeing what I saw, delete (unencyclopedic and irrelevant).
Delete--Lead holder (talk) 19:56, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor quality and of no use.--Lead holder (talk) 19:54, 23 July 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 F8 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now also at Commons: File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg. Sandstein 08:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom for a contested speedy deletion. This non-free image fails point 1 of non-free content criteria. There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created. Also BLP issues on the talk page in disputing the speedy deletion. Additional information: the source is incorrect, the image is from Facebook. It was not "Released by an array of international news media", it was used by Nordic media under extended collective licensing. ShipFan (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is originally from his Facebook. There's a PDF going around with this image and his Facebook profile. Even though some agency might have licensed it, it does not necessarily mean that they have obtained legal rights to it themselves. --hydrox (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo the fair use claim is invalid. The source is incorrect. This is a clear copyvio. ShipFan (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT --hydrox (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done using exactly the claims made here. Let's see if they hold water. ShipFan (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No free image exists, and one is not likely to be created as the individual is now incarcerated and accused of killing 90+ people. Fair use rationale is included, and prior speedy nomination was met with a majority of dissent on the images talk page. Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the form of police or court photos. There are BLP issues as the subject has only been accused of a crime, not convicted by a court. ShipFan (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion rationale (as it did on the image talk page) continues to shift as each new one is addressed. IF a court photo or police photo appears then I have no problem with removing this photo. However, right now one doesn't exist and is not likely to in the foreseeable future. Thus, the fair use rational is valid for the time being. Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-fair use rationale is invalid. It fails non-free content criteria because a free equivalent of a living person could be created. ShipFan (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However there is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the future. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The police in Norway do not offer freely licensed photographs. Photographing someone in court is illegal in Norway. JonFlaune (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about Norwegian law, you must also note there is no concept of fair use under Norwegian copyright law and since the image was created in Norway it is impossible to claim fair use under any circumstances. However since Norwegian law does not apply to Wikipedia then none of these arguments are valid. There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created by somebody outside the court. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not published in Norway. However, for someone to take a photograph in court, they would have to go to Norway and break the law there. I don't think there is any likelyhood that a free image can be created in the foreseeable future. JonFlaune (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However you could take a photo of a person outside the court as they arrive. Claiming there isn't likelyhood that a free image can be created in the foreseeable future is crystal ballery. ShipFan (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Frankly, I don't think you could. There is no "perp walk" in Norway. He will probably arrive secretly with no photo-op whatsoever, they will just drive him into the basement of the court house. JonFlaune (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) For now, free equivalent is impossible to create, as the suspect is in secret location. ~~This might change once the public trials starts.~~ (never mind, see above.) (1) There are no commercial opportunities for anyone attached to this image, (2) and the image has been widely circulated in the media. (4) If required, we can create a lower resolution copy of the image, although this is already very low resolution and low quality. (3) Image is used exactly because of its extensive encyclopedic value in its context, (8) but only as long as no free alternative is possible to create. (5) Image would be used in 1 or 2 mainspace articles. (7) (9) Image description is fine. (10). Ie. image conforms to the WP:NFCC and its use is fair use under the US copyright legislation. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words there is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the future. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but for now fair use is the only possibility, as we must have an image of the main suspect in the article. --hydrox (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it is not the only possibility! And why MUST you have an image of somebody who is only suspected of a crime and has not actually been convicted? ShipFan (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually no we must not. We could entirely have articles without his picture. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I sympathise strongly with ShipFan's last point Irrespective of subtleties of licensing legislation, this is a question of social responsibility and presumption of innocence. This man has a right to a proper trial, and to be viewed and portrayed as "innocent until proven guilty". --HAdG (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are committed to free content, not just "free-content when it's convenient". Non-free content is sometimes allowed per WP:NFCC, but the image is not of historical value, the guy is not dead (we don't have the ability to get a create free picture "now", which does not mean that we will not in the future), and it's not free, so delete it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep per Hydrox. NFCC#1 only applies for cases where you can theoretically go to the subject right now and photograph them, which you obviously cannot here (again, for now). As for potential concerns of BLP issues, Wikipedia:BLP#Images allows images that are used in-context, even if the context is negative. Yes, he has only been accused so far but in this case he was overpowered by the police while shooting teenagers, so there is no doubt whatsoever that he actually perpetrated those crimes. BLP issues are a valid concern for people who are only accused but there are common sense exceptions for cases like this. Regards So Why 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to create one right now. There exists a reasonable likelihood that a free image of a living person could be created. ShipFan (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The question whether there is such a likelihood is exactly the kind of crystal balling you despise above. As has been pointed out to you above, there is no likelihood that he will ever be publicly seen, with no perp walk, no photos allowed in the courtroom, secret arrivals and departures in court and most likely no photos allowed in prison. But that's irrelevant anyway, as we don't deal with what might be possible in future. We deal with the facts as they are right now. If you read WP:NFCC#1, you will notice that it does not say "could be created in the future" but "could be created". This refers to the possibility to create one if you went to the subject and took a picture. You can't here and just because you claim different doesn't make it correct. Regards So Why 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no likelihood that he will ever be publicly seen". He might be acquitted. ShipFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a vivid supporter of "innocent until proven guilty" but there is no reasonable way to assume he will be acquitted. He was caught in the act of shooting those teenagers after all. Even if it turns out that he was insane and thus cannot be convicted, I'm pretty sure he will not be released back into the public but sent to a mental hospital, again a place where you cannot take a photograph of him. But again, speculation on what might happen is irrelevant. NFCC#1 does not make an exception for cases where creation might be possible sometime in the future. It simply does not. So repeating that won't change that the policy does not support your point of view. Regards So Why 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the "innocent until proved guilty": Exactly. Wikipedia is not about giving summary judgements to anyone, regardless of what they have (or are accused of) having done. And both the articless do follow this. The image's use is in good faith and responsible, even if there's no snowball's chance in hell this guy was innocent. --hydrox (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise there is no reasonable way to assume he will be convicted. In fact in many jurisdictions presupposing the eventual conviction of a person is contempt of court. I'm pretty sure he will be released back into the public if he is acquitted. ShipFan (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because, well, if this were any other person it would be a delete, but the special circumstances of his incarceration for a violent crime in a country that isn't one of the likelier ones to get a free photo of a prisoner out of creates a special circumstance. Ab e g92contribs 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no special circumstances. Some of the comments here have BLP issues. ShipFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion on a talk page of the website; while this shouldn't be a space to speculate on "is he guilty or not", the same BLP standards don't apply to the discussion. Anyway, regardless of the discussion here, the fact remains that it will simply be nigh-impossible to get a free image of him in the near future, considering Norway's suspect photography laws. Ab e g92contribs 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore in future if need be. At the moment the subject in question is still only a suspect and whatever may be reported by the media, may not be responsible for the tragedy in question. In the future, after a trial and I'm from somewhere where it goes against my understanding of justice to act as if a suspect is guilty before a court has given its verdict, we may be able to caption the image as being of the culprit for the attacks, or maybe even as a wrongly arrested suspect and at that point the image will be encyclopaedic and questions of using an un-free image more easily accommodated. Wikipedia is here for the long term and has no need to chase the sensational-that this image serves-that rolling news does.--KTo288 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those who contributed to this article are the best for deciding whether to show the image is appropriate. --hydrox (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to disagree. Those contributing to the article are probably the worst for deciding whether the image is appropriate. There are too many emotions involved and they are not looking at this objectively. As I said in the AFD we must remain cool, calm, dispassionate and detached from the subject. Thin Arthur (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person is only a suspect, not convicted. The image is not of historic significance beyond contemporaneous news coverage. Thin Arthur (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Breaking News: The perpetrator has confessed the shooting spree. --hydrox (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having re-read the 10 Non-free content criteria it seems pretty clear to me that they are all met. I'm surprised there is even a debate over this really. Fig (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look up "norwegian facebook" on Yahoo News.[1] Not only do the copies of this photo in results show that many news organizations feel fair use is justified - they show that this site with this photo is now of historical significance (both as the site people would look at to see whether there were clues that the massacre was coming, and also as the image with which the subject was publicly associated during his trial), and therefore this should be kept even if it is replaceable. We will likely find additional unique photos of him with other historical significances as time goes on; these should be added to the article without replacing this one. Wnt (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's already of historical significance and irreplacable. JonFlaune (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, contradicts NFCC. Clearly, free alternatives are possible for this living person. I see nothing especially unique about the specific image. An external link would be appropriate. Chzz ► 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replaceable - Wikipedia:NFCC#1 - The inclusion of this picture removes impetus for the foundations primary objective of commons compatible pictures. Clearly there are commons picture out there and will become available soon enough. There is nothing at all unique or additionally informative through its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see the problem; this is what fair use is for. Obtaining a free equivalent is near impossible. Lampman (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is in use by many different organisations (large and small) for news purposes. It fits with fair use as there is no free replacement available as of now. Maybe one comes along eventually, if so replace this one. However, there is likely not to be any opportunity for anyone to get a picture of him during the investigation, subsequent trial and potential imprisonment. The legal system and court system is kept a lot more closed then it is in the US for example. --Lead holder (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydrox and others. We seem to be missing the point of WP:COPYVIO, which is to protect Wikimedia Foundation from legal challenges under US law. In this case, not only fair-use, but a presumption of public domain, comes into play. Facebook, as is any such *public* internet space, is increasingly recognized as a "public space" under the law: for example, declarations in facebook that are available publicly (ie not locked out to the wider public by the user) are generally accepted as evidence in courts during criminal prosecution, without the need of warrants or any such process, because it is the digital equivalent of "in plain sight". THat you can forefeit rights in this fashion is why those interested in IP issues do not publish in facebook, but use IP friendly sites like flickr.

Just as news media do not need to ask for permission to every person in a public space during a news worthy event to photograph them, news media organizations can use a publicly available photograph from a public source in the internet under "fair use". It is a question of intent. You may argue, "what about flickr pictures". I am not arguing all public content is "fair use", just the ones with identity information, whose intent is to plainly represent the subject for informational purposes, and that are not explicitly non-free. It is obvious the intent of the subject was for this photograph be used widely to represent him, and "fair use" is largely about the intent of the copyright holder and the intent of the "Fair use" user, "intent" being the operative word. My argument is essentially: using the picture from facebook is the digital equivalent of taking a picture in a perp walk.

This is clearly a place were Wikipedia policy needs to catch up, in a general and legal sense, with other information outlets. Perhaps an RfC going beyond the scope of this particular case is needed. But in the tradition of case-by-case, I think this is a keeper.

Lastly, a very easy way to resolve this is the "photo of a photo" loophole in copyright. A good screen capture of the pdf of the facebook page, that obviously shows the facebook elements, would constitute a new work, whose subject is not Breivik, but Breivik's facebook page - a public space - and hence the copyright would belong to whoever made the capture, hopefully a wikipedian who licenses this copyright into the Commons using a CC license :). That would entirely solve the issue of rights, and would only leave us to debate inclusion or non-inclusion in the relevant article(s) entirely to those article's editors. --Cerejota (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take part in a copyright related discussion, it may be wise to familiarise yourself with copyright law because your last paragraph makes little sense. In fact you've described creating a derivative work of both Facebook copyright content and content copyrighted by Breivik which doesn't help matters one bit. It may also be wise to familiarise yourself with [2] and the English wikipedia policy and history, all of which make it clear legal challenges under US law are only one of the considerations and usually not particularly important (in that legal challenges are obviously significant but since we usually go beyond what is required by law and since we have a professional lawyer to advise us most of the time we don't need to consider the law). Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yeah I am arguing there are meta-issues that need to be addressed, but we shouldn't have to sit around waiting for them to be addressed if it keeps us from improving Wikipedia by providing pictorial content. To put in terms of the resolution, the EDP terms are outdated.

2) That said, this particular work, as is, meets EDP, in my opinion. Others have different opinions, but that's why we are discussing this. TO claim am ignorant because I do not share a view, displays actual ignorance.

3) My last paragraph is clearly not part of inclusion rationale, but an encouragement to execute a strategy under fair-use doctrine, of which I have full knowledge, contrary to your opinion. Not all "derivative works" are created equal, the question of intent is central to fair-use. I am saying, a "derivative work" (a new work that in part or even majority consists of previous work) that is a photography of a public space, even if that space is virtual, is legitimate fair-use under news gathering and public interest. This is how paparazzi earn their living, photographing their subjects in the public space, were they are not subjected to copyright control as they are in films or TV. In this case, it is coverage of the coverage, and it is EXACTLY what wikipedia is built around in terms of textual content: all of our articles are "derivative works" in the broadly construed sense you use it. I say, that is all fair-use, and wikipedia wouldn't exist if the courts didn't agree. BTW, FB doesn't claim copyright on user content, only a non-exclusive license that can only be revoked by ceasing to use Facebook or by hiding the content using the tools. The use of IP is entirely the responsibility of the user. In this case, some have argue an intent to make it available in the public domain, which could be true, but for now, fair-use can be established, if not directly, creatively. If we are wrong, that's why our donations pay for a lawyer to work for us, not us for him.--Cerejota (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obtaining an image of him is not impossible or near impossible. He's been alive a few decades. There are other photos of him that exist. There are major BLP issues here. The man is still alive, and not yet found guilty of the crimes. An equivalent of this photo can be procured. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a news desk. Wikipedia loses nothing by deleting this image. Our purposes here are encyclopedic, not news-oriented. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true, but the image would have to be recent for use in the article. Since the article is about the terror attacks, an image of him as a child or even a teenager would be useless because he is and was in his 30s when the attacks were perpetrated. If the article were about him, I suppose a teenaged picture would suffice, but it is not.-RHM22 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a fair use of a notable person in an appropriate placement. Aoa8212 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have noted above, it seems as though it will be difficult or impossible to obtain a free use image of this person.-RHM22 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am Norwegian, and we don't have fair use as one does in the states. The only relevant exception to copyright is "quotation rights", and although intended for text they apply in practice to images, video etc. This is only theoretical though, as I know of no case where one has been sued for using a picture in a news or encyclopedic context, and there is an established practice to use images, video etc in a reference context. Also I am very against using a theoretical copyright debate stop Wikians to tell this story as it should be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnurkel (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Lampman, Lead holder, and others. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As other's have said, clearly way to early to say a free equivalent does not exist and couldn't not be created in a resonable time frame. And claiming something is of historical significance after about 2 days is real WP:Crystal balling Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: free alternatives are possible. Mightymights (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to get us a free image? Great! JonFlaune (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the comments I will caution you all right now that many of your comments are going to be partially or completely discounted by the closing admin. The only thing that matters in this debate is the interpretation of the NFCC, specifically NFCC criteria #1 and #8, which are the only ones contested here.
- Redthoreau, Hydrox, Headbomb, Chzz, Off2riorob, Kingturtle, and RHM22 make valid and on topic arguments related to the NFCC. Everyone else's comments are likely to be discarded for one of the following reasons:
  - Guilt or lack of guilt has no bearing on this debate.
  - Fame/Infamy or lack of fame/infamy has no bearing on this debate.
  - In order for an image to be considered free use on Wikipedia, it only has to be free use in the United States. In order to be free use in Commons, it must be both free use in the United States and free use in Norway. Therefore the arguemnts on court photography being illegal in Norway are moot if the file is kept locally on Wikipedia.
  - While the NFCC has room for debate, some users, such as SoWhy, are making arguments that are outside of the range of debate. The NFCC does not have a "right now" clause in relation to availability, therefore the argument is invalid.
Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I mostly agree with you, I think the suggestion is not that we cannot have a free use court photo because court photography is forbidden on Norway. But rather one unlikely to be created because anyone doing so is going to put themselves at legal risk (and it's unlikely to be easy either since the trial will surely be carefully controlled). Personally I do not agree this is sufficient (for example there are other avenues for free photographs) but it's a different argument. BTW without knowing anything about Norwegian law, I wonder whether the illegality of court photography would actually affect the commons case anyway. Commons tends to only care about copyright. So even if the photograph is illegal in Norway for non copyright reasons, they may still accept it. It is of course irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: NFCC does not need a "right now" clause, the wording is clear. NFCC#1 states, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created [...]". So we have to ask the question: Could someone create a free equivalent? And the answer to that question is, no. You are asking the question: Might someone create a free equivalent? The answer to that question is, yes if X. But that is not the criteria. There is no physical ability to create a free equivalent of the image; that there might be an ability to do that at some point in the future if certain circumstances are satisfied, is immaterial. No free equivalent can be created, so NFCC#1 is satisfied. As for NFCC#8, I cannot see an objective way of judging this so it must be left up to the balance of opinion, and it seems to me that the balance is that the image of the alleged terrorist does significantly increase the understanding of this event, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. - Gregg (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I like the pictures on Wikipedia of Osama bin Laden and all those other dark-skinned terrorists. This person looks white like me though. I think children will get confused seeing a picture of a white conservative and having it labelled "terrorist". I really think we should get rid of this picture, as people might get confused who the real terrorists are. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this, I find your comment racist. There are many terrorist groups that have members who are white; IRA, FLQ, KKK, Irish National Liberation Army, Informal Anarchist Federation, Kosovo Liberation Army, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Orange Volunteers, and the Revolutionary Nuclei to name just a few. Try doing research next time ;) fr33k man 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this! Why have a white man depicted as a terrorist? Gee totes (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really sad that people want to run Wikipedia with a fundamentalist approach. Any argument for the existence of the possibility of creating a free alternative after the related events, given the known factual circumstances and procedural restrictions, is intentionally ignoring common sense. Kxx (talk | contribs) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RedThoreau. Deleting because a free image "could be created" is unrealistic crystal-balling. When will this argument be satisfied and relent? When Mr. Breivik is convicted, with no photos yet? When he is incarcerated, with no photos yet? When five years have passed, with no photos yet? There is no bright line being established by those on the other side of the argument. I challenge ShipFan and others who share his/her opinion to establish, here and now, a record of how much time with no free images they think is an appropriate amount of time for WP to wait before using the image under discussion. I'm curious as to how patient they think we ought to be, and how "reasonable" the likelihood is in their opinion. I'm of the opinion that it isn't particularly likely. Kasreyn (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not crystal balling at all, it is a stardard and accepted interpretation of [Wikipedia:NFCC#1] - your position is " we havent got a commons compatible picture so we can add someone else's non free picture" - your position is not common practice by a long margin, against policy, and is against the wikipedia foundations stated aims and objectives. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Redthoreau. It is the only picture of the suspect, which has been pointed, even by the authorities, as such. It gives a face to the article. 201.164.145.114 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you want to delete this, you should also delete images of Osama bin Laden, before there's a technical possibility that you could either dive down in the Indian Ocean and take a photo of his corpse, or break into the CIA and steal the photos they took of him after he died, which would be Free as in liber since they were made by a federal employee in the course of his duties. If you decide to delete it, at least have a sense of humor and use Adelson Velsky Landis's reason as the closing argument. --93.179.4.74 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cerejota. While it's within the boundaries of being a copyvio on technicality, we must use common sense as editors. There can be a reasonable assumption of public domain and fair use, and let's not kid ourselves that there will be a free version any time soon. I suggest keep pending the outcome of the trial - if he's acquitted then go ahead with the deletion as the photo can be updated to a free version, if not then we're unlikely to be able to obtain one -AL_LOCKE|^talk 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia foundations resolution in regard to Licensing policy - our non free useage rests on/is guided by this resolution, its the primary objective and worth a read. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Charles Manson's picture in on the site. Breivik, unlike Manson, looks like your normal next-door neighbor. While I hate paranoia I do think it is necessary for people to see that someone as normal/good looking as Breivik can have something to fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhon (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All but public property now?...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Do not steal I thought Wikipedia reporters took this but it looks much like I've seen elsewhere. It turns out that Wikipedia did not take the photo. Oh, it did take it as in grabbed it from someone. This makes Wikipedia look dishonest, whatever the lawyers argue. Get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbgw (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not compliant with NFCC requirements. This is simply an identifying image of a living person. Nonfree identifying images of living persons by consensus fail NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted by comments above, it is nearly impossible to obtain a free picture of this subject from now on, since he is incarcerated and just confirmed to have made the attack. The spirit of WP:NONFREE is to prevent people from uploading copyrighted pictures where a free alternative can be reasonably found/made, all of this in order to avoid copyright lawsuits against Wikipedia; this does not really look like the case though. --Angelo (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no free equivalent and no free equivalent could be created at the moment. Deleting the picture in the expectation that it may eventually become possible to create a free equivalent, would undermine the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. - Gregg (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is possible that Breivik has released this image to public domain, along with all other images of himself that are included in the book 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence. The book is likely to be the same book as a book Breivik has mentioned in police interrogations, and according to the Norwegian newspaper VG, it is most likely written by him (source in Norwegian). Quote from the book, page 5 (under the section Distribution of the book):

The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form.

However, as long as the origin of the book is unclear, it's not possible to change the image's license, but it might be a good idea to wait for more information about the book before making a decision. Also, I am not aware of a reputable source posting the book yet, although it is easily found on the internet. Mathias-S (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; just as you were writing that, I wrote [3] - see [4] - so ABC [5] has been used as an RS on Anders Behring Breivik, to assert he wrote it. Chzz ► 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the ABC News article is a good source and would prefer to use VG which doesn't jump to conclusions, writing that "Politiet bekrefter overfor TV 2 at de kjenner til materialet, og at de knytter det til terrorsiktede Anders Behring Breivik" (The police confirms to TV 2 that they know about the material [the book], and that they connect it to [Anders Breivik]) and "Navnet Andrew Berwick kan dermed være en engelsk versjon av hans norske navn" (The name Andrew Berwick might thus be an English version of his Norwegian name). As most of the international media uses the Norwegian media as its source, I think it's safe to assume that the police has yet to say with certainty that Breivik wrote the book. However, with that being said, I've read parts of the book/manifesto and think that there's no way that someone else could have written it (but my opinion doesn't mean anything if we don't have reliable sources). Mathias-S (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, on all counts. I think I shall retain my 'delete per NFCC' position until further proof appears - which, in all likelihood, will happen before this discussion is concluded, potentially rendering it moot. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FACT: There is no free equivalent in existence. A public domain picture could be made in the future if the suspect is accessible to the public (ie. not just the press), however Norwegian legal procedure is unknown on that point, so we should error on the side of caution for now and assume no free picture will be available. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FACT: He released these pictures into the public domain years ago with the release of his manifesto, even if Norwegian law does not directly deal with public domain law. You can download the manifesto and skip to the end for his pictures right here. --Afghana ^[talk] 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This image is included in his book released on the internet with the following licence: "...I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans..." TH (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Policy before reality and common sense. Merrill Stubing (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone owns this image (probably the subject or the photographer) and it certainly it not free. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image meets all the non-free requirements. Shipfan have you not noticed the numerous media outlets (TV, Internet, printed newspapers) which have used this same image? These large companies have armies of lawyers; I doubt hey would use this image if they felt it violated fair-use and that they'd be sued. Thus Wikipedia should not censor this content just to satisfy some unfounded fear. This just shows how silly some Wikipedia policies have become *in practice* and that reform is needed. The default policy should be to allow content unless one can convincingly make a counter case (establish image is copyrighted or violates applicable IP law). Wikipedia is also being watched by judges and courts and as IP law is still very much in its infancy and full of flux and contradiction I think this is a great opportunity for Wikipedia to clearly take a stand against fascist forces and be recognized as an organization that supports unequivocally the free dissemination of content! Netrek (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image is replaceable, unless trials in Norway are closed off to the public and no one will ever have the chance to see this man in public again. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you read the discussion before you comment? This issue has been addressed before, photographing someone in court in Norway is illegal, so are you the one going to break the law, be convicted and heavily fined and probably have your camera confiscated? A new, free picture is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming for the next twenty years. JonFlaune (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trials in Norway are not closed off to the public, but no public photographs are to be released of criminals or suspected criminals AT ANY TIME. Also, per Afghana, he released the photo into public domain in his own manifesto. By the subject's own volition, this is fair use under US law, which is what matters for the purposes of this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.120.20 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep. NFCC call for deletion if a free image can reasonably be obtained or created. Norway is not the United States of America. Everyone who is knowledgeable about Norwegian law and trails makes it clear that the authorities will not be creating any Free images of the subject and that it would be illegal for anyone else to create one. It is thus clear that a free alternative cannot reasonably be created. Given that all the media are using the same photo it is clear that no alternative, free or otherwise, is known to exist; it is thus not reasonable to expect a free image to become available. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"all the media are using the same photo" no, they're not; I've seen lots of different photo's of him already - and I'm sure there will be more within a few days. Chzz ► 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sven Manguard has it right. This is entirely within the fair use criteria. It has been widely used to identify a suddenly and tragically notable person, no free image is likely to be created to replace it (yes, other recent images of this guy might be released, but they'll be copyrighted by their original creators as well) for all the reasons already discussed, and the image may even be free.
It is really sad to me to see, as too often has happened with a policy too few Wikipedians understand, misunderstandings of the policy and irrelevant issues being considered controlling, particularly by users known to be opposed to the use of any fair-use content on the English Wikipedia. This is a pretty clear keep; I can't find any way of arguing that it wouldn't be (and despite my ongoing misgivings about this policy, I can and have found reasons to concur in the deletion of images that from a purely editorial standpoint I would have no objection to including). Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daniel Case and others. Strong Keep. This event and this person are of strong historical significance, obviously (to me), and I see an encyclopedic need for an image. As long as the image is not attached to any comments saying he is guilty of anything until he has had a fair trial and that trial has resulted in a guilty verdict, I agree that it is fair use. He is already notable as a suspect who has agreed to the facts of the case as posed by the prosecution (according to my TV news in Minnesota anyway). For the reasons Daniel and others have stated, I don't think it will ever be likely that a free image will be created in the future. I detest the justifications that support my view based on the assumption of his guilt due to the circumstances of his capture. Regardless of the circumstances of capture, he is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He seems to have admitted to the facts, but as others have said he might yet be found not guilty based on his mental state. He might have killed those people without being guilty of a crime, and we must never say otherwise. I realize not all of my statements here are germane to the fair use policy, but please indulge me in having my response to what others have said. Dcs002 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet non-free requirements. For all those arguing there is a free equivalent, just one question - "Link please?" NickCT (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really having trouble understanding all of the "it's possible to get another picture" comments -- I mean it's possible to get another picture of dead people -- resurrection and time machines have not been proven impossible, therefore there is a chance that tomorrow we'll have one of these technologies and a Wikipedian might just travel through time and snap another picture of this guy at his farm. How on Earth are you computing the "likelihood" and how big it is? Can anyone explain? Gabi Teodoru (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation does not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals - Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that someone might upload a picture of this person. Chzz ► 06:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but given the conditions of incarceration, I also find it perfectly reasonable to expect no new free picture might come out in the next couple of years. Would you disagree this is reasonable? Gabi Teodoru (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has not been convicted and locked up, yet. It's very likely that, during the next few days (possibly today), he will appear in public locations where photography is possible. And, I imagine, a lot of people will take photographs.

But even that doesn't matter.

It is highly likely that someone already has recent-ish pictures of him. It doesn't have to be a newly-created photo. We don't even know how old that one is; there might be newer ones. We've no idea.

In addition, please note the part about "should be to illustrate historically significant events" - there's nothing historical, or unique, about that picture. There's other pictures of this person, already - so we cannot justify use of this - we can't claim it is the only one of its kind. Chzz ► 06:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "likely" even mean? "Probable"? That by experiment we have determined that a large proportion of Norwegians who have admitted to kill lots of people and have been arrested will have their picture taken in the coming few days? Or that you are expressing a personal belief? (see Probability_interpretations) It's my impression that everyone is expressing on this page their arbitrary personal belief in whether a picture will be taken or not, reducing the conversation to a big uh-uh / nu-uh, but using fancy words like "reasonable" and "likely".

"Likely" because, I believe it is reasonable to think that, for almost every living adult in Europe, there will be some photographs of them in existence. The board resolution uses the phrase 'reasonably expect'. Chzz ► 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe it is reasonable to think that, for almost every living adult in Europe, there will be some photographs of them in existence." -- I totally agree with this one, but not also with a statement saying that "I believe it is reasonable to think that, for almost every living adult in Europe, there will be some free public domain photographs of them in existence.", which is what we're really arguing about. But since the compendium is out there, and he said it can be freely shared, I think the point about whether that picture is free or not is moot.Gabi Teodoru (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for historical, if "the worst atrocity since World War II" (to quote the Norwegian prime minister) is not historical, I don't know what is. Gabi Teodoru (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: there's nothing historical, or unique, about that picture. The event is certainly historically significant; a facebook portrait is not.

For example: Tank Man. That picture is historically significant, in itself - so, we believe it qualifies under WP:NFCC as "fair use".

But, there are thousands of articles about people for which, unfortunately, we do not presently have a 'free' picture (e.g. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people). We cannot just grab an image and use it - not only because of legal considerations, but also because our goal is to "collect and develop educational content under a free content license". That's why WP:NFC excludes Pictures of people still alive [..] provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.

I appreciate that it uses the words "almost always", which is not a precise mathematical definition - but, I assure you, extensive discussions about the potential use of non-free images for living people has indeed almost always resulted in their removal. Chzz ► 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize -- I misread that historical referred to the picture earlier -- I totally agree with you that the event is historical, but the picture is not. Gabi Teodoru (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a non free image of a living person and is invalid under the NFCC --Guerillero | My Talk 06:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been mentioned, creating a free alternative is likely to be impossible. I think this picture should be kept until a free alternative becomes available. In the meantime, this picture needs to be kept as a very valuable contribution to the subject article. --Pstanton (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reject comments about "BLP issues" as undefined. There is not, nor will there be a free alternative available. At this point in the discussion, repeating undefined "issues" as well as future alternatives is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmrepudiate (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Breivik has himself made the photo public since it is a part of his book "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" http://www.2shared.com/file/M-s-2fBD/2083-AEuropeanDeclarationofInd.html

"This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used.

As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations." 213.112.174.25 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worldwide use of this image has place it de facto in the public domain. I believe that under Norwegian law, Breivik, if found guilty, revokes his ability to claim copyright on anything associated with the crime -- since his Facebook profile was used to promote his ideas in association with the criminal events, the image would enter the public domain. The world media is not debating whether or not they have a right to display and print this image, and neither should we. 24.240.67.205 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as released into the public domain. The image is part of the subject's manifesto (atttribution: NYT) where he writes on p. 5: "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form." That's clear enough considering that it comes from a non-lawyer. Sandstein 07:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, uploaded to Commons as File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg. Sandstein 08:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that Breivik is the copyright holder to that photograph. As the document appears to contain copies of other copyrighted materials [6], that's assuming rather too much good faith. Chzz ► 08:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's comparable. While it's possible that text was copied from other people, there is no plausible reason to assume that just because of that, the images were, too, copyrighted by someone else. If it's a picture of the subject and the subject explicitly released it under a free license, then the assumption is always that they in fact were allowed to do so and only if there is doubt about this image, we can consider the opposite. After all, if I were to copy+paste something copyrighted for a work of mine, that does not justify the assumption that everything I ever created was copy+pasted, does it? Regards So Why 08:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree that there is some uncertainty about this, but the photo is either a self-portrait or a work by another photographer, in which case it is likely a work for hire (or the equivalent in Norwegian copyright law). As a practical matter, I do not think that we should fall prey to copyright paranoia in this case. If there is somebody else who holds the copyright, which I think is unlikely, they can always make themselves known and we will delete it. Until then, it is reasonable to operate on the assumption that people normally hold the copyright to portrait images of themselves that they publish on the Internet. Sandstein 08:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this photo et al have already been widely circulated in the global media, it is essentially in the public domain. Even if he were acquitted, the photos are not going anywhere. Breivik's images are now similar to those of 9/11, Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.--Khatores (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It satisfies the Non-Free Content Criteria therefore it is valid fair-use. I understand the concern that using it disregards the presumption of interest but that has now been addressed by his admission of guilt, so there is no longer any reason to delete it. The Bruce (talk) 11:04, 24 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation, particularly since it uses an image to add a large block of copyright text depicted in the image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear copyright violation that is beyond fair-use. The images are copyrighted, the text is likewise and also the Dolby ad. All together there is no reasonable expectation of fair-use because it'd be unclear what part of the page is being used. A seperate justification would be needed for each image, all the text and the Dobly ad. It's a clear speedy! fr33k man 23:58, 23 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and doesn't help identify/illustrate the game in any way. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear hoax, speedy delete. fr33k man 00:03, 24 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:41, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:43, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:44, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:45, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus flag, created by a user with a history of creating flags and uploading them as real flags. Google Image Search's results for this flag are essentially all from Wikimedia and mirrors. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:46, 23 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wrong location (should have been WP:PUF). Anyways, unencyclopedic, ((Non-free 3D art)). –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:34, 30 July 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.

July 23

File:Wipe histevol.gif

File:Wieman, Henry Nelson.jpg

File:Wells with spires cutnpaste.jpg

File:Waynearthurs.jpg

File:Vavrek.jpg

File:WagerMutiny 02.jpg

File:VASTimage06.jpg

File:VASTimage09.jpg

File:Vibration-isolation.jpg

File:Villa Rusciano incisione.jpg

File:Village Voyage screenshot.jpg

File:Rubenstein et al 1994 Prosomeric Model.png

File:Alex R.JPG

File:Us-mdleo.gif

File:WPDOLPHINS.jpg

File:No Tissy Sign.JPG

File:Jaiku ubx thumb.jpg

File:Performancepyramid.jpg

File:Barelling.jpg

File:Vote4Meisfunny.jpg

File:WikiProject Mariners logo.jpg

File:WikiProject MarinersNewsletter logo.jpg

File:Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers poses at a party in NYC in 2009..jpg

File:US-CT-Ashford.PNG

File:Juice extractor.jpg

File:Hey look its me!.jpg

File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg

File:Odetta - Odetta And The Blues - Inlay.jpg

File:1944- The Loop Master Title.png

File:Flag of the Muncipality of Vílla Mellá.PNG

File:Flag of the Muncipality of Santo Domingo de Guzmán.PNG

File:Flag of Cerro Largo Department.PNG

File:Flag of Tacuarembó Department.PNG

File:Flag of the Muncipality of Santiago de los Trienta Caballeros.PNG

File:Ciudad de San Felipe de Puerto Plata.JPG

File:GIJoeBasicFigback.jpg