While it is orphaned, I would like to seek comments while Subtitlemewrong uploaded in December 2006 as PD-self and Hulkman33 overwrote on 3 November 2007 as PD-self then removed license. Jusjih 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' speedy deletion here). Additionally, a number of these images are used to illustrate living people, which is inappropriate in nearly all cases. While several of these images are tagged as "public domain," it is an incorrect license. If they are released into the public domain, it would have been by the copyright holder (here, The Associated Press), rather than by the federal government. However, I believe that this came up because the uploader claims he "bought" the image. There is also a claim on many of these images that permission has been granted for use on Wikipedia. While permission can help bolster a fair use claim, the fact that it's a noniconic press photo makes that irrelevant. In a number of these images, the uploader claims that he "bought" them. The Associated Press does indeed sell their images. However, in many circumstances, photos purchased through this agency are intended for personal use or for use in a specific context. They sell a copy for the buyer to have and enjoy, but not to completely own the copyright to. Since images on Wikipedia must allow for commercial use and derivative work, due to downstream users, we likely cannot allow them. Such images from this uploader have been deleted in the past (for example, here and here.) -- RG2 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one of the Reagans and the Queen is iconic, as no PD photos can be found similar to it in any fashion. It was during an awards ceremony, where Reagan was essentially knighted, being awarded the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. I suppose the one of Guiliani can go, as more PD images of him will be showing up; same with the one of John ROberts. The Margaret Thatcher one should stay, for they are hard to come across, especially ones of her in her later years. Plus, there are no PD images of Katherine Graham. Happyme22 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find verifiable sources that any of these photos are iconic, then they can stay. (See Image:Kent State massacre.jpg for an example of when press photos are acceptable.) Otherwise, these should all be deleted. -- RG2 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's certainly possible that no free images can currently be found, this image is replaceable, as someone can surely take a picture of a statue in a park. -- RG2 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no one has, so wouldn't it be smart to keep this image until someone does? This is not from a photo agency or anything, too. Happyme22 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because this is an obvious case of a replaceable fair use image. If we have a perfectly good nonfree image, then what's the motivation for anyone going out to get a free one? -- RG2 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these images are sourced to and apparently owned by Getty Images. This company is a stock photo agency. Our unauthorized use of their photo directly conflicts with their commercial interests, and such images are almost always deleted, barring exceptional circumstances. Such deletion nominations have been consistently upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' speedy deletion here). -- RG2 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no free images of Merv Griffin. I've searched day and night, and unless you want Griffin's article to have absoultley no images on it then keep this one. And the one of Mrs. Reagan at the Congressional Awards Presentation is a very valuable image, showing Dennis Hastert, Robert Byrd, Mrs Reagan, as well as President George W. Bush in 2002; this is a very valuable image as none like it are available. Happyme22 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why these photos are valuable to press and stock photo agencies. -- RG2 23:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images of living people are certainly replaceable. And this one is so recent, too -- December 2006 -- that it is surely possible that someone can create a similar free work. -- RG2 05:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know of anyone who can. And trust me, I was looking for a free image and could not find one. It would be foolish to delete this. Happyme22 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her article says that she still regularly speaks about her experiences. Doesn't seem prohibitive for someone to find an image. -- RG2 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. Claims to be released into the public domain, but it's a scan of a newspaper clipping, so the tag is obviously untrue. - Calton | Talk 13:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image made redundant by replacement, Image:Prime_Suspect_titles.png, subsequently orphaned. Deletion requested by uploader. MURGHdisc. 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While orphaned, need comment as to whether this is useful here or on Commons while the subject gets only ~ 26000 Ghits. Jusjih 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pure text, so it isn't useful anywhere. If he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the article will be written in the usual way so that it's editable, rather than appearing as an image. Delete. —Angr 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
