September 4

edit
Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zscout370 (notify | contribs).
  • User:Zscout370 uploaded Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg as public domain. It is, however, an svg version of the Canadian Coat of Arms Image:Bigcancoat.png which is protected by Canadian Crown copyright (which was in Image:Bigcancoat.png which has since been deleted). Since the original image is protected by copyright, an exact copy (regardless of format) cannot be made free. For example, take the NHL logo. If someone was to redraw it as an SVG, it doesn't make it public domain, it is still a copyright of the National Hockey League. Jeff3000 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HUMONGO KEEP It fits fair use. -FlubecaTalk 23:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but the user released it as public domain which is a copyright violation. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then a relicense is in order. Anyways, I been checking Google, so this is what I found out; the Canadian symbols, including the arms and flag, are protected under the Trade Marks Act. There is no copyright claim from what I am seeing, but we still need to ask if we wish to use it. [1] Other than that, I don't see Crown Copyright claimed for the coat of arms at all (just like with the Canadian flag and other state symbolics). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kudos to Jeff per fair use rationale. — xDanielx T/C 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. It's beautiful, and you've all worked hard at it, but it's replaceable. Someone could create a new drawing of the coat of arms (as is frequently done for coats of arms on Wikipedia), without it being a derivative image of Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin's drawing. I put in a request [[2]] for it to be recreated. The description of the coat of arms is a trademark and not copyrighted, but any given drawing has individual creative content (e.g. details in the look of the lion) which are copyrighted. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a depiction of the official coat of arms that has been adopted. For instance, the article shows what the different arms looked like over time; all the same "coat of arms" but different depictions of them. This is a non-trivial part of explaining the history, and nature of the coat of arms and is not replaceable. --Haemo 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't find the reasons for deletion valid. Avala 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Reyn Yeager 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).
Image:Bret and Jemaine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).
Image:Reel Big Fish.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).
Image:Concordia University at Austin Aerial View of Northwest Campus 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).


Image:Queen Elizabeth High School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gabrielsleitao (notify | contribs).
Image:Studentstouringnewcampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
Image:Goldencheekedwarbler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
Image:Goldencheekedwarbleroncampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
Image:Studentswalkingoncampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
Image:Studentstudying.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
Image:Season5promocast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Preppyboy9016 (notify | contribs).
  • Keep First of all, contrary to what someone has tagged the photo with, it's clearly NOT a screenshot-- it's clearly a publicity photo meant to promote the show or some aspect of it.--Gloriamarie 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to have evidence that it is released to promote the show, we have discussed this for Dawson's Creek and Star Trek images. If we can find this proof, then it should stay. Note that the Star Trek images questioned were clearly publicity images, but we couldn't locate any proof that they were intended for promotional use, even though they almost definitely seemed to be for that use. Ejfetters 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. publicity images

edit

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep those with fair use rationale, delete the rest. Fair use inherently does not depend on what rights/restrictions the copyright holder asserts. — xDanielx T/C 03:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need proof that the claim that these have been released for promotional use is correct. Most of the character pages for these have images of screen captures which is more appropriate because the tag doesn't say they've been released for promotional use. This has been the discussion for several television show publicity images. I can try to help find screencaps of these if you wish, as I have been finding screencaps for Star Trek and Dawson's Creek and tagging them appropriately. Just say the word if you'd like my help. Ejfetters 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. If I understand correctly, you say that it is problematic to use the promotional release tag without evidence - this much I understand. But why would screen captures be superior? If we just remove the unevidenced promotional release tags and retain the images that are equipped with fair use rationales, wouldn't that be just as good as getting a screen capture and giving it its own fair use rationale? Slightly confused; please explain. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't know the true intent of the images, no matter how obvious it may be. I never said screen caps would be more superior, they would be of inferior image quality, but screen captures don't claim to be released for promotional use, they have a different copyright tag. If the tag is removed, then which tag do we place on it instead, as we don't know the true nature, so we don't know what to tag them as. Screen captures would have a definitive tag to use. I know another has requested I don't cite other discussions, but, I must point out that it was discussed at length for several television shows' publicity images, and in the end, they were replaced with screen captures as the admins deleted the images. If an admin decides that these images should stay, then by all means I won't argue it, but I must point out that the reasoning behind the deletion of the other images seems to fit these as well.Ejfetters 11:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree that images under fair use should be deleted because a similar alternative could be created with a more specific tag. If the image is under fair use, the tag is essentially superfluous -- the tags do a nice job of explaining what fair use means to unfamiliar viewers, but that's about it. These images are all used in one page, so deletion would remove the important visual element from those pages. Since they aren't high-traffic images they aren't likely to be replaced any time soon, and if they are replaced chances are it will be with another picture of this sort instead of a screen capture by editors unaware of this IfD. If you or another editor were to upload similar quality screen captures of these individuals, I wouldn't object to the old ones being deleted, but I really don't like deleting useful and non-orphaned images where there isn't a policy violation.
          • Of course, if there is a strong precedent (substantial participation, few dissenting opinions) in favor of deleting images of this sort then the closer would probably be justified in ignoring my opinion. But is this really the case? IfDs tend to get little participation, so strong precedents pertaining to images tend to be formed on policy pages but not the IfD forum. And are you sure there are no relevant circumstantial differences? If you could link to the page(s) illustrating the precedent, it would be helpful, at least for my understanding. — xDanielx T/C 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here are some of the discussions I was referring to - here, here, here, and here. Ejfetters 05:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hm, I see where you're coming from. Still, I don't think the precedent is clear: on one side editors have argued that a screen capture is a less substantial portion of some work than a posed picture (debatable IMO, especially when dealing with low-res copies, but reasonable), on the other side editors have argued that posed photos are more along the lines of promotional material (though still perhaps in the gray area). I'd agree that screen captures are somewhat preferable based on substantiality, but I still wouldn't support deletion in cases like these where an alternative is possible but does not currently exist and isn't likely to exist in the near future. I agree that the discussions you cited are relevant, but I don't think there's really a precedent -- the DRV was borderline with strong opposition from Perón, Jenolen, and Badagnani, and to a lesser extent from JulesH and DES. The closure of the big subsequent AfD, which leaned toward keeping the images, was essentially a statement that the DRV happened. All reasonable closes, but all borderline and without consensus in either direction, except for the last link which was a special case since the alternative was readily available. — xDanielx T/C 04:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should keep these. See my comments here for further details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HumanNatureVideo2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayque (notify | contribs).
  • The tag is wrong, the image was previously deleted, it is unencyclopedic and a copyright violation. It was deleted, but now it is re-uploaded and being used again. Maybe warn the user about this too, or block them if they keep uploading it? Ejfetters 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CGAi P1010334.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).
Image:CGAii P1010333.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).
Image:CGAiii P1010332.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).
Image:CGAiv P1010331.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).
Image:Agent Head.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Secretagentclan (notify | contribs).
Image:Ks homepage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bitboy (notify | contribs).
Image:101455504 cfe28bb081 o.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 75pickup (notify | contribs).
  • Image is released under CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, but the image's page on Flickr clearly states that the source of the image is the Drudge Report. It's not a free image, and since Alec Baldwin is alive and well, this would be replaceable as well. fuzzy510 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A link to the Flickr page in question: here. It seems the Flickr user mis-licensed this shot. Also, this user has a lot of copyrighted work from external sources in his account. aliasd·U·T 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]