Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 24

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 24)
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24 edit

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:

Image:Torchwood_logo.svg or Image:TorchwoodBarnstar.png edit

This is a bit of an odd one, either The former is replaceable by a free image (WP:NFC#1), and can be derived from the latter

or

The latter is a derived work based on the copyprotected former, and therefore not available under GFDL Fasach Nua (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barnstar - derivative work. Keep logo - unreplaceable, correct fair use rationale. Will (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barnstar, Keep Logo - same as above. StuartDD contributions 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barnstar (derivative), keep logo. — Edokter • Talk • 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the barnstar image (can't do that with non-free material) and Keep the stripped logo (has a valid FUR). - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar delelted. Logo kept -Nv8200p talk 16:19, 30 January 2008 (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.

Image:Randy-Moss.jpg edit

Image:Randy-Moss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Suran37 | contribs).
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:

Image:Jake.jpg edit

Image:Jake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hayman91 | contribs).
  • The name is too generic. Some uploaded versions are not properly licensed. I will notify all involved uploaders to use more precise image names. This page should be deleted and locked out. Jusjih (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use it as a picture of myself at WP:BRC. Jmlk17 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per no given reason to delete. I don't see why the name of the file is the issue here. Jmlk17 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is generic a typical rationale here? If not, we can easily remedy the license. the_undertow talk 05:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Too generic" is not a reason to upload under another name either. This doesn't even make sense. It alerts that you're uploading over an existing image. If that warning is ignored, you get reverted. I mean, is this a new thing now that we're going to go delete everything with a generic name? Because I'm sure there are a lot of such images. Particularly those used for userspace only. Lara❤Love 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is the image name even a valid deletion reason? I have never seen this deletion rationale. Names of files are largely moot anyways... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless author information is provided. The file name isn't an issue, but knowing the author and the license is essential. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep information is provided. Rationale for deletion is not valid. Protecting the page in anticipation of deletion is what one would refer to as bullshit because it prevents others from adding the requested rationale. It's like asking me to call you and blocking my number. I assume this is over. the_undertow talk 10:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this image shouldn't be deleted. However, a more interesting issue would seem to be that the upload history of this image currently includes four completely distinct images. Two of them are small, of dubious provenance and were rather quickly reverted; of the remaining two, the first was uploaded in April 2006 whereas the other, current one was only uploaded this month. Both of those versions seem to be properly described as self-made and freely licensed. The only page this image is currently used on, User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal, is clearly supposed to show the current version (guy in bathrobe); however, it seems not only plausible but likely that the original version of the image (black and white cat) may have been used in the past on other pages, whose old revisions now show the wrong image. Given all this, can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't revert the image (and its description) back to the version uploaded by Jerryg on 17 April 2006 and protect that? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reversion would lead to an orphaned image. However, that is irrelevant. The proposal for deletion was license and commonality of image name. The former has been resolved, and the latter is a moot point. If you want the image deleted for any other reason, you will have to open a new case. the_undertow talk 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. All previous uploads deleted. It is at uploaders risk to use a generic title. -Nv8200p talk 18:49, 30 January 2008 (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:

Image:Arnold-AS-Conan-3.jpg edit

Image:Arnold-AS-Conan-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Arnold-AS-Conan-3.jpg listed for deletion|]] | contribs).
  • Image is clearly a deriv work of [1]. --Megapixie (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and the comment states that. What's wrong with derivative work? How about adding the deriv-reference as a comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.133.2 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the problem is that without the permission of the original works copyright holder, you can't distribute a derivative work. See Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works or Derivative work. In particular: Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. Megapixie (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it any worse than distributing original copyrighted work using the loopholish "low-resolution" rationale? So how about changing the rationale of this picture into something like "this is a derivative work of a low-resolution, copyrighted poster, which we believe qualifies as fair use"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.133.2 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might indeed be able to come up with a fair use rationale for the sketch. However, if you did, it's hard to see how essentially the same rationale wouldn't just as well apply to the original image from which the sketch is derived — and given a choice between an accurate image of the original poster and a third-party sketch, we'd rather have the original. The resolution argument is something or a red herring here; while a sketch of an image of a poster could indeed have a higher resolution than the intermediate image it is based on, it cannot be a more accurate depiction of the original poster than that image — and showing what a particular copyrighted poster looks like, in an article where that information is relevant, is pretty much the only purpose for which our non-free content policy would permit any non-free image of a poster to be used. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8 as image is not significant in either article the image is used in. -Nv8200p talk 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 21:06, 30 January 2008 (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:

Image:Rubyridgebook.jpg edit

Image:Rubyridgebook.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grandpafootsoldier | contribs).
  • Image is a book cover of the book, The Federal Siege At Ruby Ridge. Image was incorrectly being used in the article Ruby Ridge. Image would only be fair-use in the article about the book itself, and as no article on that book exists, this image should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is about the incident behind the book, and mentions the book itself. As there is no article on just the book, this seems a fair use of a low-res image in an article that is about both the incident and the book. Yaf (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Yaf. However, it might be a good idea to move the image back down to the "Aftermath" section where I originally had it positioned. Having the cover of Mr. Weaver's book at the head of the article (especially with its rather confrontational image of the cross-hairs over Mrs. Weaver with child) could be seen as a POV violation. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, I've moved it. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Book cover images are fair use in articles about the book not in articles about the subject of the book. "Weaver wrote a 1998 paperback book, The Federal Siege At Ruby Ridge, about the incident." is not critical commentary and does not justify use of the copyrighted book cover. -Nv8200p talk 17:25, 30 January 2008 (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.

Image:Mac-Pro-2006-2008.png edit

Image:Mac-Pro-2006-2008.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Not | contribs).

Image:Knightlogo.jpg edit

Image:Knightlogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by El Greco | contribs).
  • Image:Knightlogo.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Knight Rider (1982 television series) logo.png. Original image was deleted from the Knight Rider page because no fair use was given by the original poster. El Greco uploaded a new file, but for some reason the sizing was goofed up and the image was distorted. I uploaded the same image, this time as a .png file, and it seemed to fix the problem. Plus I redid the fair use tag as El Greco's version was lacking adequate information. Cyberia23 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the image I uploaded was distorted? El Greco(talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is weird. And I know I'm not the only one seeing this because on Knight Rider page Collectonian tried to fix the image too. Check this out: here. After you changed the image the top picture is what I saw. I think it was a glitch in Wikipedia or something, but I thought it was a cashe problem with my browser. I purged that and it was still showing up funky. I clicked and dragged the image to my desktop to download it and it appeared as the bottom picture - the wide one (like it was originally in the article). I changed it to a png file and re-uploaded it and it fixed the problem. Now, with my other computer, I checked out your image and I can see it is the middle image and you're right it looks fine. So I don't know what the hell is going on. Maybe some technical genius can enlighten us. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is very interesting. Is this the only image its done it to? El Greco(talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Image:Gamespot.png edit

Image:Gamespot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Armando12 | contribs).
  • The image contains copyrighted trademarks and images of other companies besides Gamespot and in which while may be licensed to Gamespot to use on their web site, are not free or licensed to be used on Wikipedia. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know the image is not free, and that's why the image has a fair use rationable. Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to have a fair use rationale for every single copyrighted item that is displayed in the image, not just one for Gamespot. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The nice thing about fair use is that it matters little who actually owns the content or how it is licensed, as long as we're using the content in a manner considered fair under copyright law. The main way in which the identity of the copyright holder(s) might be relevant is that, to claim our use of the content as fair, we need to assert that it does not substantially reduce the market for or value of the original content to its owner. In this case, where the content in question consists mainly of advertisements, however, any financial harm to the copyright holder(s), whoever they may be, seems unlikely indeed.
That said, the former fair use rationale given for this image was rather weak, and in some details incorrect. I've edited the image description page to hopefully make the rationale more comprehensive. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept per Ilmari Karonen -Nv8200p talk 18:35, 1 February 2008 (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:

Image:Iraq attacks.jpg edit

Image:Iraq attacks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BenB4 | contribs).
  • The argument that it's public domain is completely incorrect. The facts and figures aren't copyrighted, but the graph (an expression) is. The image could not be kept under fair use, because is replaceable. --Superm401 - Talk 10:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot - I have uploaded a line graph of the same data (it used to be a bar graph). As only incidental non-expressive typographic elements which serve only to describe the data remain, there is no residual expression which could be subject to copyright. Pbt54 (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it can't be moot as long as the original image remains. Second, your graph is similar to the original in several ways besides the actual data. It uses the exact same scales, and while the phrase "Iraqi insurgency attacks by target" is not copyrightable, the exact appearance of it in the image is. A new graph should be generated from the original data, without any reference to the AP image. Furthermore, your image violates Wikipedia's policy on watermarks. Superm401 - Talk 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - None of the original image remains. All of the words have been re-written and moved. The graph has been re-drawn in a manner indistinguishable from a new graph, and there is no expressive content remaining. Boowah59 (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. The text is not rewritten. The footer has been redrawn, but the text and position is the same. Both the headline and footer is the same text in the same place. Compare http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Iraq_attacks.jpg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/1/1d/20080124111949%21Iraq_attacks.jpg . Moreover, it has a watermark, which is against policy. Finally, it should not cite AP if there is no expressive content (as AP isn't the original source of the figures, any content they provide is expressive) left from the original. Superm401 - Talk 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. The original image has been deleted. I disagree that the appearance of text in the same location is copyrightable or is the use of the same scale. There is no creativity in either of those. A reference to the original source material must be made or the graph is original research (although the link given on the page is now dead.) -Nv8200p talk 16:11, 30 January 2008 (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.

Image:Daimler super 8.jpg edit

Image:Daimler super 8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hektor | contribs).
  • Uploader has removed a "replaceable fair use" warning (ignoring the "Please do not remove this tag" advice) and claims that this promo photo is irreplaceable because this car was "is not exhibited in a car show or commercialized" yet. That is blatantly untrue according to Daimler_Motor_Company#Revival, the car came out in 2005, and there are many non-promo photos on the net, for example on used car sale pages [2], [3] High on a tree (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- blatant WP:NFC#1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mermancharles.jpg edit

Image:Mermancharles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theturdreich12 | contribs).
  • Orphaned image of nn individual. Sole purpose was to vandalise article ([4]). --Muchness (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pillockk.JPG edit

Image:Pillockk.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theturdreich12 | contribs).
  • Orphaned image of nn individual. --Muchness (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charlesmermann.JPG edit

Image:Charlesmermann.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theturdreich12 | contribs).
  • Orphaned image of nn individual. --Muchness (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mermancharles (Small).jpg edit

Image:Mermancharles (Small).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theturdreich12 | contribs).
  • Orphaned image of nn individual. --Muchness (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fashion_designer_Valentino.jpg edit

Image:Fashion_designer_Valentino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fuzzybuddy | contribs).

Image:HereticsofDune.jpg edit

Image:HereticsofDune.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stupidnut | contribs).
  • Unnecessary second book cover in article. Only used for decorative use. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DuneMessiah(NEL).jpg edit

Image:DuneMessiah(NEL).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gardener_of_Geda | contribs).
  • Unnecessary second book cover in article. Only used for decorative use. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dune.jpg edit

Image:Dune.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stupidnut | contribs).
  • Unnecessary second book cover in article. Only used for decorative use. Garion96 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Image:Scorecard - lara 400.jpg edit

Image:Scorecard - lara 400.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moondyne | contribs).
  • This non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8 (significance) because it doesn't add much to the article Brian Lara. We can understand perfectly well that he broke the record without having to see the scoreboard that showed he broke the record. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the exact opposite reason as cited above. Lara's 400 runs is arguably one of the most significant records in the sport of cricket and a photo of the scoreboard is possibly the only way to represent this pictorially. Yes, its also described in the prose, but this is why we have a fair-use provision - to allow non-commercial photos to be used which enhance an article and which are unreproducable. The event was a unique and important moment in time. —Moondyne 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A picture is worth a 1,000 words. This is not a great picture, so only worth perhaps 859 words. Still, enough. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete press image. Not iconic. Specifically excluded by NFCC #2 . See counterexample: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 number 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapixie (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary fair use image. Garion96 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails wp:nfc #1 too, easily described with text Fasach Nua (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #1. An image is not needed to convey the score. -Nv8200p talk 02:18, 30 January 2008 (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:

Image:Maquette_by_Parducci.jpg edit

Image:Maquette_by_Parducci.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash | contribs).
You don't know what this is or where it is or why it's there. It's a maquette and not a copyrighted work. But I can tell you where it is NOT and that is in wikipedia. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything artistic is automatically copyrighted, including maquettes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'both might find this interesting - it's a policy over at commons about "Freedom of panorama", which includes statues. Seems to be as long as the statue itself is out of copyright, photos etc. of it are good. -Malkinann (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if it not out of copyright, but the sculptor was gay and had no children and/or known relatives - then who gives clearance to use a particular image? That's what I'd like to know. Carptrash (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However Corrado Parducci was none of those. Here is an email, hot off the . . .. whrer ever these get hot. As the sole surviving son of Corrado Joseph Parducci and executor of his estate, I claim to hold any copyright applicable to his work. Einar Kvaran is documenting these sculptures (which are all in the public domain), and I have been helping him insofar as I am able. He has my permission to use the low resolution images of my father's work, images that he has created on Wikipedia. Allen Parducci. (posted for Dr. Parducci by EInar akaCarptrash (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Which makes this a Keep. (Also all the other Parducci pictures) Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therefor Dr Parducci some of us do love you ! Incredible though that copyright of three dimensional material should applie to two dimensional documentation of it. One would have thought the protection was against pirate casts and the like, not incomplete images presented for educational purposes + what are most of those statues doing in public places anyway ? How many of us have ever asked for any of them ? We need protection ! Artists should be paying us, the public, for our benevolent attention especially when so many of us slave to give them credit in what we have so far presumed to be a non commercial encyclopedia. And BTW is there really so little interest in what is happening with so much fascinating documentation ( Carp's dedication ). Jeez ! What a sorry bunch we really are ! Lunarian (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Image was an orphan. -Nv8200p talk 18:31, 1 February 2008 (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.

Image:Sgt._York_Memorial.jpg edit

Image:Sgt._York_Memorial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash | contribs).
I'd already pulled this one, but you'd better get over to Daniel Chester French and weave your magic. After that Augustus Saint-Gaudens and then I'll give you more. And then you'll ask you law prof about it and he'll say, "Well it's not a clear cut thing, some consider photographs to be works of art in themselves, and subject is not really an issue."" Or not. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no law prof would say that. This is clearly a derivative work and non-free. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DivineChild-Parducci.jpg edit

Image:DivineChild-Parducci.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash | contribs).
It is hard to not call you at least . . . ... slow. Sculpture on buildings is not copyrighted, but this one is gone too. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. As long as there is "conceptual separability" between a copyrighted work and a functional work (which there clearly is between a sculpture and a wall), then it can be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, "Then it is automaticaly copyrighted" ? As opposed to "can be" which suggests . . .... all sorts of things. Carptrash (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British_Justice_2.jpg edit

Image:British_Justice_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash | contribs).
  • non-free image (though marked GFDL) not used in mainspace Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EWShahrazadUse.jpg edit

Image:EWShahrazadUse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash | contribs).
  • probably non-free image - artist died 1949[5], no date that this was painted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When my pictures appear here, or in any of the similar places where this stuff goes on, I now just delete them and any others of mine that are nearby. I could come up with a date but, dies it matter? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter, because if it was pre-1923, then the painting would no longer be copyrighted and this picture would be a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The building is/was 1927. However this image was for an artilce on the painter that has not yet happened, and will not come from me. Lots of other folks out there doing these sorts of aticles, I'm sure. Carptrash (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg edit

Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg listed for deletion|]] | contribs).

Please, I request to remove all such picture of our prohet PBUH. Don't upset people on religious grounds. Stop playing with muslim's emotions all over the world. Have a good day.

This is an image from Wikimedia Commons. It is not uploaded to on en.wikipedia so it can't be listed for deletion here. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (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.

Image:Kiva-banner-small.png edit

Image:Kiva-banner-small.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sushi Tax | contribs).

Image:MaineRoute109.GIF edit

Image:MaineRoute109.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Newhampshire | contribs).

Image:Espace Musique Logo.jpg edit

Image:Espace Musique Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MapleLeafFan04 | contribs).

Image:Madlaxwhitedress.jpg edit

Image:Madlaxwhitedress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:OgasawaraSachiko | contribs).
  • The fair use rationale is invalid - this image cannot possibly be the 'main visual identification' of the character, as there are several other images of this character in the Madlax (character) article. Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_January_24&oldid=1220786897"