Claims both to be the author's own work and a copyrighted logo. Also used on a page currently up for afd, but that's not entirely material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:58, 5 September 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 debate was:
speedy closed. This image and the one below were nominated by a user who actually wanted them kept, not deleted. I can't quite fathom the reasons for doing so, but it seems to have been an attempt to disturb the process of a parallel listing at WP:FUR. I note that it really doesn't belong there either; it really belongs at WP:PUI, but in any case, I don't see that it's doing anything constructive here. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a "no permission tag". This image is public domain in Poland. Period. Reproducing it in another format (ie film) does not magically add another copyright. I am submitting this for deletion for the community to look at this. I strongly believe NYscholar is wrong. His tag even said "Wilhelm Brasse (an Auschwitz prisoner working under duress) to whom the photograph of Czeslawa Kwoka has been credited in sources provided. The image was captured as a video still and reformatted from a video clip uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec". According to Polish copyright law, it is in Public Domain without residual copyrights". He admits it's PD. Hence there is NO reason to delete it. -Nard 03:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "properly sourced" to the film The Portraitist; the video being used is from YouTube, which apparently stole it from the film or elsewhere (who knows precisely? That's partly the problem). --NYScholar (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article on The Portraitist, and I provided the information stating that online sources used by Poeticbent and others have apparently been taking material from the film and or other unauthorized photographs of the Museum exhibits and copying it into video compilations and then uploading pieces of those video compilations made from still photographs either made at the Museum by who knows or from the film into images in Wikipedia. The uploader has not sourced the material s/he used; I did so, after figuring out where the images were coming from. The uploading is not properly identifying the sources used to make this image. The authors involved would be the Museum, Brasse, and/or the filmmakers; not the uploader and not the creator of the YouTube videos. The uploader does not properly identify sources. The identification of unacknowledged sources is the result of my labor and hard work in developing the sources for the articles on these subjects since approx. Aug. 28, 2008. --NYScholar (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed elsewhere in Wikipedia: See listing of image in WP:NFR and WP:FUR; this user's opinion is simply an opinion; there is no undisputed evidence to support these claims of "public domain" in the United States or Poland. Sources of image? Sources of claims? I had nominated this image for speedy deletion and also placed the missing permission template earlier; this user's reversions are contrary to the notices in the templates not to remove them until the matter is resolved. This matter is not resolved. --NYScholar (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is properly sourced to the film "The Portraitist". You yourself admit it is PD in Poland in your tagging of the image. Per the Wikimedia Foundation's official policy[1] reproducing an out of copyright work does not add another copyright, hence your claims it is copyrighted through the film are invalid. -Nard 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is the above user (Nard) referring to? I have consistently stated that I do not believe that this photograph is in the public domain, just as I have stated about the other 2 images based on photographs exhibited in 1955 or later and/or published in 2002 or not at all from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum photo archive. I have never said that "PD in Poland" is correct; that is the uploader's additions to templates that I constructed disputing the "public domain" claims; the uploader kept changing the permission needed and disputed fair-use rationale templates that I wrote to add the "PD" claims to them. Those are not my additions. I am going to reconstruct my template questioning this image; it was changed by the uploader and deleted by Nard more recently. This is not proper. The templates say not to remove them until the matters in dispute are resolved, and, despite Nard's definite opinions, they are not definitive or even, in most cases, as I'm saying here, true. --NYScholar (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image published prior to 1976 not in compliance with US formalities. Public domain under Poland's 1994 copyright law (all old photos not registered for copyright PD) and hence not restored by URAA in 1996. Completely legal in Poland and the USA in other words. Image had a tag disputing the licensing saying this "Wilhelm Brasse to whom the photograph of Czeslawa Kwoka has been credited. The still photograph derives from a video clip uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec". According to Polish copyright law, it is in Public Domain along with all similar images made before the law was changed. Nevertheless, due to lack of understanding of what constitutes Fair use a wrong copyright tag was initially applied". NYScholar is pursuing these image across Wikipedia and Commons even though he admits they are PD. Changing this to a normal deletion so the community can tell this guy to STFU. -Nard 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: I contest that these images taken from YouTube videos (and a blog and a newspaper) are "public domain in the United States" and I contest that they are "public domain in Poland."--NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed elsewhere in Wikipedia: See listing of image in WP:NFR and WP:FUR; this user's opinion is simply an opinion; there is no undisputed evidence to support these claims of "public domain" in the United States or Poland. Sources of image? Sources of claims? I had nominated this image for speedy deletion and also placed the missing permission template earlier; this user's reversions are contrary to the notices in the templates not to remove them until the matter is resolved. This matter is not resolved. --NYScholar (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You admit this image is from a Polish museum and is PD in Poland[2]. So I don't even have to argue against you, you do all my arguing for me. -Nard 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not: I certainly do not admit that the image is taken by the uploader from the Museum; the image is taken by the uploader from a YouTube video and a blog using the same image, and the photographs are part of exhibits in the Museum that the Museum does not allow visitors to photograph at all; the Museum's exhibits constructed from its photo archives with captions that it constructed are not "public domain in Poland"; the uploader states that, and the uploader and/or someone else added that to the speedy-deletion/no-permission template that I placed earlier. You are referring to words that I did not write. Don't tell me what I think. You are distorting the situation due to lack of familiarity with the editing history of the image page and the templates and who wrote what when. There is no permission given to the uploader to copy and upload edited pieces of unauthorized YouTube or blog postings of images that are also copyright-protected (in Poland and in the U.S.) in the film rights of the distributor who presents a clip containing some parts of the same photograph, which it had to do with permission of the Museum, according to Museum policy. The uploader does not own the rights to the image; the YouTube uploader does not own the rights to the image; these amount to theft from the owners of the photographs, who include the Museum, Brasse, and the filmmakers, in their various and complex copyrights. --NYScholar (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised that both images (above) are a subject of a week long assault by one disgruntled user who does not seem to want to agree with the premises of neither Fair use nor Public domain. Both images were nominated for deletion already several times (with different tags) by this user against the will of a number of editors as well as admins. It might be necessary to take this matter somewhere else before the issue is settled simply because there’s no indication of any positive change. --Poeticbenttalk 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am objecting to the continuing violations of WP:NPA and personal characterizations of me as an editor, which are nonsense. I state unequivocally that I did not place the information about "public domain" in the speedy deletion template; it was added to an earlier version of the the speedy deletion template that I posted by the above uploader and/or others. Moreover, I am not a "disgruntled user"; I am the editor who has contributed most of the current content to the article (including almost all the sources) in which Poeticbent insists on adding these disputed images, even though that person has not contributed much of anything else if anything else to the article content.--NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images are of dubious copyright status and the image page contains disputed claims of "public domain". The uploader really does not understand the basis for the dispute, and keeps claiming "public domain" without giving any evidence that the images are in the public domain in the United States. The copyright-related tag placed at the bottom of the page by the uploader and the tag relating to public doman in Poland are the work of the uploader; I have nothing to do with them. The template disputing the fair-use rationales and those licenses is mine; it should not be changed by these other users. If they want to add a "hangon" template, they are free to do so. But they should not be deleting and altering (corrupting) the temlate that I posted. I do not think that these images that Poeticbent has uploaded to Wikipedia are in the "public domain" in the United States, and I think that the fair-use rationales are misleading, coupled with the tags at the bottom of the page (work of Poeticbent, not I). --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate the speedy-deletion templates, which are properly placed. --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I object too most strenuously is the obstinance of an uploader of images to jeopardize the article that I added so much work to so that the images can remain in them. If the images don't belong in them, they will be removed. But one would not want the entire article removed due to potential copyright violations due to those images. The notability of the subject of the images (the "identity picture") has been questioned in a deletion request; through much hard work on the article, I and others have managed to rescue it. The uploader's insertion of images with potential copyright violations and dubious license claims of "public domain" do not improve the article; they weaken it. Much as some would like to see these "illustrations" of the poor Holocaust victim who died at 14, if the images are not up to the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia, they will be deleted. People can see them in the sources that I and others have cited as source citations in the article, or find them easily enough through any Google search to the subject's name > Images. All of the copyright notices on all of the images in Google warn viewers of them of potential copyright violations, just as Wikipedia does in WP:Copyvio: images must be uploaded following WP:POL. That is the bottom line. --NYScholar (talk) 07:41, 5 September 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.
Non-free image of living person used just to illustrate he was once in the same room with another living person. This can be conveyed in text, which makes this fail NFCC#1. There is nothing special about this photograph. It is not the only photograph of the event and it is hardly iconic, which makes it fail NFCC#8. -Nard 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the above user has been visiting images that I have posted via my contributions history re: images. In fact, I was at this event discussed in the articles it is in and saw such photographs being taken by University press photographers for distribution to the media. NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The false statements above stating reasons that I do not have for uploading it are absurd and simply inventions of the poster, who is involved in a dispute over other images that I had nominated for speedy deletion; he removed the templates that I placed and then went over to this image and added the deletion template on it. If it fails a review, that is fine with me. But I object to the tactics the user is engaging in. He responds to others' charges of "copyright paranoia" on his current talk page (see the link in signature provided via his user page). NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I will say most definitively that he violates WP:AGF in saying that the image is "just to illustrate he [who? Harold Pinter or Melvin Bragg?] was once in the same room with another living person"; what an odd conclusion! NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The image illustrates precisely the event being discussed in the article: the photograph is a posed photograph taken at the event (I was there and saw the ceremony); the image was posted via the publicity department of the University of Leeds, which provided the image for publicity purposes about the event to news organizations. (It was also accessible via the University publicity office; it is no longer at the URL where it once was located; it may be located via the internet archive. I'll see later. NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
One of my roles is as a journalist as well as an academic scholar; I frequently have access to press kits. This image is/was in press kits relating to the event. I may re-tag it if I have time and upload it with another fair-use rationale if I have time and if that becomes necessary. I don't have time now. I find the comments of this other poster extremely mean-spirited, wrong, and bordering on if not crossing over the lines of Civility. --NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melvin Bragg is the Chancellor of the University of Leeds; the photograph was posed because Bragg was giving Pinter the award discussed in the article in which this image is placed, illustrating that event (the giving of the honorary degree); physically, Bragg gave Pinter the award. I dispute this nominator's assumptions and declare them false. --NYScholar (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is the only photograph of Bragg and Pinter posed in this precise manner and in their academic garb distributed by the University of Leeds via its publicity department and/or press kit that I know of, and it is published in the BBC News site account of the event because it was distributed to the press via the University of Leeds publicity department and/or press kit. The image depicts a specific event discussed specifically in the article on Honors and awards to Harold Pinter and in the article on Harold Pinter and academia; it is specific to content in both articles. (There may be private people's images of this event, but no one has yet posted any in Wikipedia. There is no such photograph posted in Wikipedia Commons that I know of. So far this image of Pinter and Bragg in their academic garb is not replaceable.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [with some additions after I looked back at the image page. No time to do more now on this; perhaps later. --NYScholar (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
A photograph does not have to be "the only" photograph of an event to be uploaded with fair-use rationales. I don't know where that idea comes from. It is, however, "the only" photograph that I know of that is still easily accessible for viewing for verification purposes by other Wikipedia readers; it is cropped from a larger publicity photograph; it is one of if not the only posed photograph of Pinter and Bragg (and the others in the larger uncropped version) wearing their academic garb; the academic garb is a crucial element to the 2 articles whose content it illustrates; the articles are identified in separate fair use rationales. (I added a second one although the same information applies to usage of the image in both articles.) There is no basis for deleting this image. --NYScholar (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [updated after I added a second fair-use rationale as well. --NYScholar (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Strong delete, replaceable photo and does not add significantly to the readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have developed the context for the illustration further. I do not understand why the above poster does not see the image as "significantly" adding to "the readers' understanding of the article"; perhaps the larger context and cross-reference links to Wikipedia section in related article will help. There are two articles, not one, in which this illustration appears, and there are two fair-use rationales provided, one for each usage. Commenters need to consult both articles, not just one, and to keep in mind that both articles are sections split off from the main article Harold Pinter, which has already gone through and passed a "good article" review (with these articles cross-referenced in them). The contexts for both articles are also the cross-referenced main article Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PStifle/wizard: Please review the current versions (as of 14:45 5 Sept. 2008) and see if they change your perspective on the relevance of the image in both articles. I think that an image of the academic ceremonial garb is relevant and useful for readers who are unfamiliar with such ceremonies and how the person receiving the award wears academic robes at such ceremonies. It's a very "pomp and circumstance" ceremony; it looks like graduation ceremony. In this case the U of Leeds had its Humanities faculty process just for this one award to be given. That is "significant". Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt that the event was significant, and I have little doubt that the image could be replaced- but the image does not show us anything important. It shows us what the people look like- irrelevant, replaceable. It shows the people met- irrelevant, already explained in the text. It shows what the people were wearing- doesn't really matter, if it was as significant as NYS was making out, then it would be discussed in the text. Furthermore, this is an image from a BBC news article, which is not a source appropriate for taking fair use images from. I can see no reason to keep this, and the majority of NYS's arguments are a little odd- a related article passed GA? So what? J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking in account the above comment(s), have added the ref. to the fact that the Humanities faculty processed in full academic garb just to present this honorary degree to Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of correction: The original source of the BBC's image is the University of Leeds Press Office (free press kit image distributed to the media; the BBC website gives no caption for any credit at all). --NYScholar (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you mentioned that they were in academic garb- there's still no need for a picture. If there was an in-depth discussion about the exact nature of the garb (which is obviously not relevant) then an image may be useful. As it is now, it's not- it's decorative and only there because it catches attention. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not "only there because it catches attention"; the reason why I (the uploader) uploaded the image for each of the two articles that it was in is because it illustrates the event being discussed in the lead (lede/opening paragraph) in the articles, and/or in a section of the article. The event it illustrates, the conferral of an honorary degree to Harold Pinter, are topics explicitly discussed in the articles: the conferral of an honorary degree.
(cont.)It is too bad that the image has been deleted; it was a significant illustration of a notable event relating to the subject, Harold Pinter. These two articles are sections split-off from the main article in the course of a "good article review"; the entire article (with the image in these sections/now articles) had passed the "good article review" with the image in them. The source of the image (an another version of it) was in the caption of the image and the BBC version (from the U of Leeds Press Office without attribution/credit) is in a source cited in the article that was also a source citation in the image caption.
Does the claim stated above, with respect to this particular image, a claim already addressed to be false, "decorative and only there because it catches attention" apply perhaps more accurately to the use of Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg, placed in the infobox of the article, as listed above in closed discussion? How is that image not "decorative and only there because it catches attention"? (speaks to lack of even-handedness of consideration?) --NYScholar (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also would still dispute the claim stated above that "the image does not show us anything important"; that is a user's own subjective value judgment not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:IUP; the image illustrates an event already deemed notable enough to be a topic in an article (section) in Wikipedia that passed a "good article" review. --NYScholar (talk) 21:47, 14 September 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.
Non-free use image of a living person. Not necessary for the article and could in principle be replaced by a free image if it were.
Keep. The image is not being used to identify the person, but to identify the book. That the book has an image of the author, is coincidental. --Elonka 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For two and a half years, until yesterday, the caption, placed by Elonka, read "Kathryn Sansone, author of Woman First, family always (Photography by Suzy Gorman)": see this diff. That is not a coincidence. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the image caption could have been better worded. Many other editors have reviewed the article though, so it seems a bit odd that you're attacking me for a bit of text from over two years ago. If there's a problem with an image caption, the best way to handle it is to fix it, not to immediately nominate the image for deletion. --Elonka 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is not the issue, as I explained in another place, and I would not have nominated the image for deletion if it had merely been the caption which had been problematic. The issue is with the non-free image and its usage, which I maintain do not meet the policy criteria for use in Wikipedia. The way to fix that problem is to bring it to this page for the community to discuss, and that is what I have done. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. It seems clear that this is not fair use. This book cover image is used to illustrate the article Kathryn Sansone, not an article about the book itself. This doesn't comply with the fair-use notice on the image page. In addition, I suggest it fails more than one of the following "official policy" requirements from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria:
1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
The article does not need an image of the subject to explain who she is, and if it did the subject is still alive and so it is not impossible that a free image could be created.
8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
Used in an article about the person not the book
8. A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.
Agreed that this is a book, not a magazine cover, but I assume the principle is the same.
12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; 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. This includes non-free promotional images.
The fair use rationale for the use of image states "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." I dispute this. Until yesterday [3] it had been explicitly used as a portrait of the author, the subject of the article, and this is still clearly the case. The book is discussed briefly and the image is not required for that discussion: indeed it contributes rather little. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of applicable fair use criteria. ColdmachineTalk 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't used in an article which is a fair use place for it. I came here from Elonka and Richard's talk pages. Verbalchat 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have reworked the image's placement in the article, added some more critical commentary of the book, and updated the fair use rationale, using bookcover placements in such articles as Barack Obama and John McCain as examples. It seems to me that this should address the above concerns, and that the image should now better meet Wikipedia Fair Use standards. --Elonka 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the book cover itself is not discussed. I would not have an issue with this image appearing in an infobox on an article on the book, but I do have an issue with this image appearing in an article on the author. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 7 September 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 debate was:
Kept. Image is in the public domain. Trademarks are not considered "sufficiently unfree" to prevent use. If there's a problem with the image quality, that's a sofixit problem, not a deletion problem. WilyD 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although nominated for speedy delete (and deleted) earlier, I restored it given that it was a reproduction of a logo. A discussion on my talk page revealed that reproductions of the logo is not acceptable. I'll contact the creator of the svg to contact University Marketing Communications. seicer | talk | contribs 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invalid claim of PD and goes against university regulations regarding their logo. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is this SVG an inaccurate reproduction of the OSU logo? Accurately-drawn vector logos (properly tagged as non-free and used per policy) are perfectly permissable (e.g. Image:Apple Computer Logo.svg). — mholland(talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well IAMAL but what the university consider apropriate use of their logo is not rely relevant to the copyright status of it. If a name typeset on plain solid color background type logos are considered creative enough to pass the threshold of originality under US law then yes it's non-free and need to be treated as such, but otherwise it would "only" be trademark protected and we generaly don't worry too much about that for our purposes. --Sherool(talk) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would say is does pass the threshold, the article says advertisements are protected. What is a logo but an ad for something? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The copyright boilerplate has been changed. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks PD to me, though I would not mind if someone decided to add a fair use rationale. The page linked to by the nominator appears to contain some guidelines to help prevent the image of the university being tarnished- providing we have a super-accurate reproduction of the logo, we will not be infringing on this (which I believe is part of trademark law). J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem the reproduction is not super accurate. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:01, 9 September 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.
Not used, also the license is unscertain. Tagged as PD, but the source is a now defunct fainsite in the form of a phpBB forum (see archived version). Sherool(talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, PD tag is doubthfull, source website says "All contents copyright 2008, Swarthmore College Bulletin, Swarthmore College". Sherool(talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This copyrighted image's rationaled purpose is for visual identification and illustration of "Episode 209". The content of the image has no accompanying critical commentary and discussion by reliable sources, not meeting the acceptable use stipulations of the non-free content guideline. The eighth non-free content criterion requires the copyrighted media to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, whereas this image is simply a depiction of the cast w/o any specific relevatory relation to the article or the understanding of the content therein. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, sourced only from the German Wikipedia, so I did some detective work. The image on deWiki was transfered to Commons and deleted, but the Commons version was in turn deleted as a copyvio. Sherool(talk) 19:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, also pretty sure the Orange County Sheriff's Department is not actualy a US federal government agency. Sherool(talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo, the "source" website only contain a looping flash based Ninja turtles clip or some such. Sherool(talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfree screencapture of a woman in Victorian costume. Serves no encyclopedic purpose such as improving the reader's understanding of the fictional character Irene Adler, and thus fails WP:NFCC. Sandstein 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on a user talk archive, have been pending clearification of copyright status since May 2006... Sherool(talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, source is a now defunct fain website, no info on who actualy took the photo or why it should be considered public domain. Sherool(talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg#Prohibition_against_both_still_and_video_photography_by_the_Auschwitz-Birkenau_State_Museum){kind=link}
