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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firefly Tonics logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Harrybriggs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orphaned text logo, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thlpoliticalcartoonimperialismleopold.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Co1063 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OR, LQ, no encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toddy in FL 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eaaaaat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OR, LQ, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young couple.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RuigAonwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OR, LQ (overexposed & blur), subjects not ID'd, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2012 (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 F7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rob De Luca Live 2011.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moonslide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails NFCC#1, replaceable -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 06:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not replaceable by the old picture (2008) as it does not represent the stage appearance now. The old picture must be removed from the article as it is not accepted by Rob De Luca anymore, it might be harmful to his career. So biography of living people policies collide with image policies. Details onNard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) Talk Page. Policies have to be changed slightly, this will be topic of a discussion.

The image does not fail NFCC#1 unless the result of the discussion says so (and I don't think this will happen)

In a nutshell: don't touch things they way I've posted them until we've come to a constructive solution, please!

Moonslide (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wham!-2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FotoPhest (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

non-free image used to illustrate the Wham article. This is a for sale image owned by PR Photos (www.prphotos.com) where they charge for exactly the use to which we are putting it. This image fails WP:NFCC#2. Either a free image or, failing that, a not-for-sale copyrighted image, needs to be used to replace this. Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Useful image, but it's stretching use of non-free images to breaking point. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#F7: fails WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wishin' and Hopin' - Grey's Anatomy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

non-free image of two characters talking. I can well understand that they talk without such and image and think that this image can adequately be replaced with text (fails WP:NFCC#1). It does not significantly add to reader's understanding (the rationale is no assistance here as it is generic and vague) and also fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk depicted in the image was the most significant moment of the episode presented in the article. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2012 (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 - this is being handled by OTRS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bubba73 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete This image of a non-free sculpture used in the article about the subject fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not necessary to show a non-free image when prose could be used, especially when there is no critical commentary about the image or the sculpture. Besides which the claim of educational use under the legal fair-use terms is not sufficient as Wikipedia's fair-use is much stricter and educational use if not a good enough exception and any image so used must pass all 10 criteria. The image would probably pass our non-free criteria if it was used to illustrate an article about the sculpture itself. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable statue showing his influence on other artists. --GoP_T^C_N 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If necessary, I can see if I can get permission from the sculptor to use my photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) The statue "shows his influence on other artists." I don't think so: his playing may have influenced other but a statue does not demostrate that influence. No matter how notable the statue is that does not make a non-free image pass all 10 of the non-free criteria nor justify its use in the subject's article. Such usages have been deleted previously. If the statue was as notable as you suggest it would have an article of its own and a non-free image could justifiably be used there. ww2censor (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some commentary about the statue in the section of Otis Redding where the image is now. Is that sufficient? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If a notable sculpture factory made a statue of him, that it is a proof of his legacy. This picture is important to understand that he was not only an independent artist. The article is not about this sculpture, but I still think it has a strong EV, especially with that rationale. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NFCC 8. Also, currently orphaned fair use image. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an orphan until it was removed from the Otis Redding article today. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the file. You need to be more precise, SvenManguard. How exactly does it fail #8? And why does it damage? Is it a copyright violation? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((Photo of art|((subst:nld))|someone|((Non-free 3D art)))) Besides, not critically discussed, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Can be undeleted 70 years after the death of the sculptor (whenever that is). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not simply remove every non-free picture on that article? The lead image is also not discussed anywhere. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 22:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* The statue was "Featured on N.B.C. Today show August 2003 &

Southern Living magazine Sept 2003 issue". If there is some critical discussion in the magazine, can that go in and the image kept? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is irrelevant if you can find some other document somewhere which provides critical commentary about the statue. What you need is critical commentary of the statue in the Wikipedia article. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And that commentary could come from that magazine, right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I got email back from the sculptor (who holds the copyright) giving permission for the photo to be used, if the statue is attributed. So that eliminates the "fair use" problem, right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case it will be really great but you need to get him to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and the OTRS Team will add a ticket to the image if they are happy with the situation. Now it sounds promising. ww2censor (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unclear in this case. It is my photo of their statue. They can't grant permission to use my photo (but I did) and Wikipedia isn't going to reproduce their statue. Can this be clarified? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor needs to grant you permission to use your own photo since the photo is a derivative work of an unfree statue. Additionally, since you took the photo, you must grant permission to use the photographic parts of the image. The photo currently implements details from both you and from the sculptor and so you are copyright holders of different aspects of the photo. Neither you nor the sculptor can use the image without permission from the other party. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave permission when I uploaded it. I got permission from the sculptor yesterday. I've asked on OTRS noticeboard what to do next. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like things are progressing well. Thanks for the effort. ww2censor (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete! - Not yet, at least. I have gotten permission from the sculptor to use it and I have forwarded it to the OTRS. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:19, 7 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nojo191.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nojo191 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File now unneeded on user page 74.93.239.89 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete orphaned user image. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 4 July 2012 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tt-whitehouse.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TreasuryTag (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Personal image of indefinately blocked user, image has no further value to the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Indefinite isn't necessarily forever. We can (and should) afford the bytes to keep this, even if just to avoid any appearance of hounding TT. Deleting these two images would not profit the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) – ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) (copied from TT's talk page, by me, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep both per Andy Dingley, and a trout for the nominator. This is not the way to treat people, even indefinitely blocked people. 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trout, as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Is this logo copyrightable or in the public domain as the uploader claimed? Not all images from banned uploaders should be deleted. Simple logos may not be copyrighted and while the logo is not simple, it appears to come from the US government which means it may be PD. Of course, it can still be deleted as a possible duplicate of File:US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg But still someone should tell Sven about this DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I told Sven about this discussion here He doesn't seem to have any concerns. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Treasury tag.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TreasuryTag (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Personal image of indefinitely blocked user, image has no further value to the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Indefinite isn't necessarily forever. We can (and should) afford the bytes to keep this, even if just to avoid any appearance of hounding TT. Deleting these two images would not profit the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep As above -- no reason to delete it, it's not polemical or anything.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) – ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) (copied over from TT's talk page, by me, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep both- unseemly gravedancing. Reyk _YO! 12:50, 7 July 2012 (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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SHAC GROUP.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MDEVER802 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

non-free image with a really shaky rationale. Image is used to supposedly show people who were imprisoned. Text alone can convey this adequately. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (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 - by the standards that Wikipedia uses the image is replaceable with a free alternative and fails WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Craigboy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Previously deleted per WP:NFCC#1 (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 25#File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg) and now re-uploaded again. This is indeed replaceable: someone has used a piece of software to create a fictive illustration of an object. However, anyone else could create a replacement by using a computer program to create a different fictive illustration of the same object. Besides, the object is being produced for NASA, so it is unlikely that there wouldn't be any ((PD-USGov-NASA)) images, although the uploader claims otherwise. Besides, if the uploader disagrees with the previous deletion discussion, this should really have gone to WP:DRV instead of being recreated without any discussion. Maybe it should just be deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and then taken there... Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In essence all images are replaceable but it would take a tremendous amount of time to faithfully reproduce this image in a 3D rendering program. NASA is not producing the object, Orbital Sciences is producing it. Stefan2 if you believe there is an alternative ((PD-USGov-NASA)) then please prove me wrong. You deleted an image that had been on wikipedia for over two years, did not give any notice on the Cygnus (spacecraft) page and the only person you informed was the original uploader who has been inactive for the past five months. There was no previous discussion, there was a deletion proposal that no one knew about or responded to.--Craigboy (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 does not depend on the amount of effort needed to create the replacement. Compare with taking a photo of a random person who is still alive. Sometimes, it might be necessary to travel to a different continent in order to create a replacement (which requires considerable effort), but such images are still considered as replaceable. If you feel that WP:TW should give more notices, feel free to propose this at WT:TW. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:NFCC#1 does not depend on the amount of effort needed to create the replacement." Then no image would be justifiable. This image was released by Orbital Sciences as promotional material, it is of reduced size (430 × 350 pixels as opposed to the original 3,754 × 2,475 pixels) and its only used on a single article. I'm still waiting for you to post the ((PD-USGov-NASA)) equivalent that you expect to exist (which was the reason listed for the deletion nomination). You chose to use Twinkle so you are responsible for not giving due notice. The first Cygnus mission is planned for late this year, after which time I will be able to remove it from the article.--Craigboy (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up the topic at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#CGI images and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CGI Images, and as it stands today, there are huge numbers of fictional objects computer generated graphics on wikipedia that are used as non free images. Scenes from toy story, avatar (movie) or elephants dream, characters out of star wars like jar jar binks the list is endless. We can make some images to a reasonable standard ourselves, but not all CGI images would be handled the same way, there is no guidance for editors, and everything else is simply rhetoric or editorial judgement until it is defined, so Craigboy has a valid point of view on the issue, and like everything else that doesn't get put into writing, it's left up to the vagaries of consensus. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise ? I'd like to see it. Penyulap ☏ 04:20, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you can't replace images if they are derivative works of something unfree, so all of your other examples are faulty. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well that's one theory, thing is, it's not in policy it doesn't even get a mention. So it's just left up to consensus as I said. Try changing things, like inserting one tiny sentence into this policy and it will be off on a 100 page trip to nowhere. Comes down to your guess being as good as mine. I know the secret to solve these puzzles, but meh, nobody listens to Penyulap. Ask Craigboy :) he'll tell you nobody listens to me :) What I do is avoid annoying people, I think would the artist/owner/group/company that made this picture be upset at it being used in this way, it's always served me well.

But find us a policy or anything written down to say which are ok and which are not. Penyulap ☏ 09:02, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Taking a slightly different tack, I've seen at least one photo on Flickr of a Cygnus spacecraft mockup. I don't know if the mockup still exists or is on public display, but if it is a photo of it could in theory replace this CGI image. Sadly, that particular photographer selected "non-commercial" on their CC license; otherwise I'd have imported that photo already. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 20:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't mock-ups still protected by copyright?--Craigboy (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow that train of thought, what are we to make of government-created pictures of copyrighted private spacecraft? Will there ever be a free image of a private spacecraft if the company that made it does not release it? -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of private spacecraft would count as a "useful article" because they have "an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information".--Craigboy (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A spacecraft is a utilitarian object. Utilitarian objects are not subject to copyright protection in the United States (but are sometimes subject to copyright in other countries). Thus, this is not a copyrighted spacecraft but a spacecraft which is in the public domain. On the other hand, computer-generated images and photos of the spacecraft may be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2012 (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.