User tagged image as GFDL but then wrote "No commercial or any other use without permission" in the summary. If this is the case, the image will have to be removed, as we don't allow non-commercial only; if they do want to release it under the GFDL, they'll have to remove that line from the summary- – Qxz00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, The image was not orphaned. It was removed on February 26, 2007 by User:Whitesox2332 without any justification what-so-ever. I have placed it back in the article. The Joe Louis article has been constently vandalized lately and therefore, the deletion of this image without an edit summary amy very well be in tone with the vandals. Tony the Marine05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image, while having a fair use license applird, lacks citation information as to where it was scanned from or attributionsas to who produced the artwork. The website listed is simply a personal up-load repository, with no citation or attribution information included. — J Greb11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was taken from the gallery of images for use by press from Bruce Hornsby's official website www.brucehornsby.com; therefore, permission has been granted by the artist for usage in promotion of his work. BoaTeeth22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to add proper fair use Wikipedia tags to this and other images. Awaiting response from user Nv8200p as to what else needs to be done. Please recognize that I am not trying to violate any copyrights or Wikipedia user policies, I am only trying to improve the Hornsby article. Any assistance is much appreciated, preferrably before these images are deleted. BoaTeeth01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now attempted to add proper fair use explanations as well as relevant source information to this and other questioned Bruce Hornsby image uploads. I've specified specific sources and indicated the clear intention of these sources to serve as "press kits" for Mr. Hornsby as per his own language usage in introducing the galleries. The presence of copyrighted, non-downloadable, image galleries on www.brucehornsby.com, which these images were obviously not taken from, further supports the artist's intention that these images be made available for fair use in promoting his music and career. I would appreciate continuing a healthy dialogue about further improving the documentation on these images, should further improvements be necessary, rather than moving forward with deletions without discussion. Once again, my intent is sincere and my effort only to improve this article. BoaTeeth14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot assume anything. Unless it states explicitly that the images are free to use, and are tagged accordingly at the source, then the image violates free use policy for use here. Get the person who owns copyright to the images to release all rights under one of the appropriate licenses for use on wiki, or they should be deleted. The onus is on you to correctly tag and license the images, not me. --Bob23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Came acropss this one while going through all the taggings, mistaggings and edit warring User:Grcampbell had carried out. The image is fair use: A model is solely famous because of their looks. A model from 40 years ago cannot reasonably be illustrated with an image taken today. No free alternatives are therefore available. An image to illustrate a model is reasonable, as it provides valid and relevant visual evidence of why they became notable. The image is, in my opinion, fair use, and as it is sourced (from Playboy Enterprises), it's not a violation of copyright. Proto►16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with Proto here. First, if the purpose is to illustrate the former looks of the model, it still isn't non-replaceable: you can write to the lady and ask her to release a photo from her youth to us (most likely, she'll be flattered and comply). Second, being non-replaceable doesn't make the image fair use. The image must be fair use plus be non-replaceable on top of that. It becomes fair use the moment the article engages in "critical comment and analysis", not of the person but of the photograph. It doesn't. Simply showing what the person used to look like isn't that. Fut.Perf.☼17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Fails fair use criteria. Other images like this one have already been deleted by numerous admins. It becomes fair use the moment the article engages in "critical comment and analysis", not of the person but of the photograph. It doesn't. Simply showing what the person looks like when playing a character without special effects/makeup leads to failure as a free use photo of the actor in question would satisfy requirements. Also, for it to be fair use, it must contribute significantly to the article. I posit that it doesn't and merely serves a purely decorative purpose. Attribution of the copyright holder is also lacking. I asked myself Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?, and my answer was yes. — Bob18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Heh, wait, you're quoting me there. However, I think the situation is slightly different here than with the playboy photos. The fair use tags somewhere make the reasonable point that "for identification" can be a valid fair use purpose too. So, these are supposedly all images that illustrate the fictional character, not the actor, right? For a discussion of fictional characters in a movie (or comic etc.), images are by definition non-replaceable, because you can illustrate the movie only with material from the movie. And a single, smallish image (screenshot etc.) would, I guess, be legitimate for the purpose of identification, simply for making it clear which character we're talking about (i.e. for readers who might visually remember the character from seeing the movie but not their name). So, I'd be inclined to let these pass. (As long as these characters all must have their own pages anyway, which is a different topic.) I'm not sure, I might have deleted some poorly tagged instances of such photos myself some time; it's difficult to be consistent with these things when the tagging and application of fair use rationales is commonly so chaotic. Fut.Perf.☼18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Fails fair use criteria. Other images like this one have already been deleted by numerous admins. It becomes fair use the moment the article engages in "critical comment and analysis", not of the person but of the photograph. It doesn't. Simply showing what the person looks like when playing a character without special effects/makeup leads to failure as free use as a photo of the actor in question would satisfy requirements. Also, for it to be fair use, it must contribute significantly to the article. I posit that it doesn't and merely serves a purely decorative purpose. I asked myself Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?, and my answer was yes. — Bob18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Copyright violation. Fails fair use criteria. Other images like this one have already been deleted by numerous admins. It becomes fair use the moment the article engages in "critical comment and analysis", not of the person but of the photograph. It doesn't. Simply showing what the person looks like when playing a character without special effects/makeup leads to failure as free use as a photo of the actor in question would satisfy requirements. Also, for it to be fair use, it must contribute significantly to the article. I posit that it doesn't and merely serves a purely decorative purpose. I asked myself Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?, and my answer was yes. — Bob18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's not a copyright violation, and it's being fairly used on the George Mason (24 character) page. I took it off the Xander Berkeley page, because it's not a photo of him, it's a character publicity headshot. I'll add a sentence to the page it's being used on specificially to jump through the "critical comment" hoop (as though it's identifying purpose has no encyclopedic value)... Jenolenspeak it!18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. imdb is not a source for promotional images. Imdb has deals with copyright holders, and the fact that they use an images doesn't imply at all that every every site is welcome to use it. --Abu badali(talk)19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image with no fair use rationale being used merely to identify a living person. Tagged with {{replaceable fair use}} but deemed irreplaceable for some reason that the admin failed to provide. Therefore, I am listing it here. All other photos in the series were deleted for failing fair use policy. — Bob21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I suppose the admin was thinking that it's not replaceable as a screenshot of a TV show. But in the article, it's being used to show what the person looks like, not in critical discussion of the show. —Angr10:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Fails fair use criteria. Other images like this one have already been deleted by User:Quadell, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Howcheng amongst others. Also, to quote User:Future Perfect at Sunrise from here: First, if the purpose is to illustrate the former looks of the model, it still isn't non-replaceable: you can write to the lady and ask her to release a photo from her youth to us (most likely, she'll be flattered and comply). Second, being non-replaceable doesn't make the image fair use. The image must be fair use plus be non-replaceable on top of that. It becomes fair use the moment the article engages in "critical comment and analysis", not of the person but of the photograph. It doesn't. Simply showing what the person used to look like isn't that. — Bob22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
![[1]](http://www.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/F/W/G/0/LON61821.jpg){kind=link}
