Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems
January 12th
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
January 12 is the 12th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 22 (112th day).
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Copyright status unknown for this non-free image. It was just copied from nndb, that works by user submission and is not much carried about image's authorship. Damiens.rf 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- The source site says this non-free image belongs to newspaper El Mundo and states "Todos los derechos reservados". WP:NFCC#2 applies. Images from news sources are to be avoided. Having served as a Senator, official PD images of him should be available. Damiens.rf 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- One quibble. The subject served in the Puerto Rican Senate, not in the United States Senate. This does have a significant bearing on the availability of {{PD-USGov}} images, although it doesn't change NFCC #2 in the least. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Damiens, here is the situation with this image. I have searched everywhere for a replacement image and I have not found any, it seems as if the image of Colon is not replaceable. This image was taken in the 1950s, therefore it is expected that "Todos los derechos reservados" of the newspaper El Mundo would appear as such in the digital copy of the Digital Library of the University of Puerto Rico. The newspaper ceased operations in the 1980s altogether, it was not purchased by another entity, it simply shut it's doors due to a strike and stopped to exsist, therefore it is highly unlikely that it renewed it's copyright. I believe that this is a case similar to "El Imparcial" where the image was published (1923 through 1963) with notice but the copyright was not renewed and therefore that it is in the public domain due to copyright expiration. So, what do you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know what happens on these cases. We need to ask some lawyer what happens to copyrights that once belonged to now dismantled organizations. Is it inherited? Is it dismissed? We need some expert opinion opinion here. --Damiens.rf 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here the history. The collection of images from the newspaper El Mundo was auctioned, and then acquider by the Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña (Puerto Rico Digital Library). While they phisically own all the photos, they only own the copyrights for those created by employees of El Mundo. As they explain, some images were produced by freelance photographers and even by news agencies like Associated Press and the like. Images from El Mundo are not public domain at all, which is really bad news, since that's a valuable collection and it is available online.
- From the source url (in the website for Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña itself) I couldn't tell if this image is from an employee, a freelance or from a news agency. They say "Todos los derechos reservados (All Rights Reserved), but do not says who reserves the rights. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- More info here. They do have a process for asking for permission for publication of the images (only those from El Mundo employees), but the text seems to imply print, ignoring online publications. --Damiens.rf 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know what happens on these cases. We need to ask some lawyer what happens to copyrights that once belonged to now dismantled organizations. Is it inherited? Is it dismissed? We need some expert opinion opinion here. --Damiens.rf 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Damiens, here is the situation with this image. I have searched everywhere for a replacement image and I have not found any, it seems as if the image of Colon is not replaceable. This image was taken in the 1950s, therefore it is expected that "Todos los derechos reservados" of the newspaper El Mundo would appear as such in the digital copy of the Digital Library of the University of Puerto Rico. The newspaper ceased operations in the 1980s altogether, it was not purchased by another entity, it simply shut it's doors due to a strike and stopped to exsist, therefore it is highly unlikely that it renewed it's copyright. I believe that this is a case similar to "El Imparcial" where the image was published (1923 through 1963) with notice but the copyright was not renewed and therefore that it is in the public domain due to copyright expiration. So, what do you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me then that there is a possiblity that we can use it as Non-free content since, they do not say who reserves the rights and it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Ramiro L. Colon" illustrates the subject in question and there are no free equivalent which is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña acquired the copyrights and we have sourced and credited them for the picture, plus we've added a proper rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I don't see how any of these addresses the concerns I have carefully raised. I honestly fail to see how "irreplaceability", "illustrates the subject" and "sourced and creditfor the picture" could be of any help regarding the problems I have raised. And, of course, I would not call that rationale "proper" myself. It only says (1) the man is dead and (2) the image will be used on his bio and "articles related to the subject". The rationale not only fails to explain why is the use ok, but it also actually states that the image will be used improperly (in articles "related" to the subject). --Damiens.rf 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from a fan's page. Also, the subject died recently, so some effort may produce a free image. The bio currently have 2 non-free images of him, which is unnecessary. Damiens.rf 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from website that use a lot of images (and I confess I don't fully understand the purpose). Also, the subject died recently, so some effort may produce a free image. The bio currently have 2 non-free images of him, which is unnecessary. Damiens.rf 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are several photos of Torres, but most are credited to the Associated Press. The only one that was taken by an independent author is this one, but he is reserving the copyrights. Perhaps we can ask him... - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice photo. I vote for Marine to try to contact the Flickr user :) . --Damiens.rf 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are several photos of Torres, but most are credited to the Associated Press. The only one that was taken by an independent author is this one, but he is reserving the copyrights. Perhaps we can ask him... - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a copyrighted image. Maybe usable under fair use, but probably not on 2 different articles;. Damiens.rf 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment-I have taken the image out of one of the articles and left it in the Coco Lopez article. In the event that for some reason that article is deleted, I will then add it once more to the article of the inventor. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Taking a photo of a Coco López can should be easy for anyone living in Puerto Rico, including me. However, I'm not sure which rationale should be used in a self-taken photo of a can. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I asked for help one this one. I'm also not sure how to tag this image. --Damiens.rf 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Taking a photo of a Coco López can should be easy for anyone living in Puerto Rico, including me. However, I'm not sure which rationale should be used in a self-taken photo of a can. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that this one does not have a problem at all. Otherwise we would have to delete every single image of every restaurant or building which contains an advertisement image of any product. For example, an image (picture) of "Times Square" will contain a giant image of an advertisement of "Coca Cola" was is in itself a copyrighted trademark. Are we going to delete someone's upload of "Times Square" or "Picadilly Circle"? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Since User: Soundconsulting claims to be the copyright owner of various of the images listed on this page, I left him/her a notice to respond to the concerns raised here. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think all of these album covers can be handled with this template [1], I don't have time to deal with it right now, but perhaps someone else could. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are just used in a gallery. I'm not sure this is tolerated. --Damiens.rf 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right... One of these album covers is likely sufficient. Perhaps just their debut album? Here's the WP Policy which forbids WP from having a large collection of images with little to no text: Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY The pictures must be presented in an encyclopedic context. I would expect to see a maximum of 1 album cover perhaps, if any at all, unless there were some highly notable features on the cover. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm okay with deleting all of these HPS album covers, neither seem to be in use at a relevant article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right... One of these album covers is likely sufficient. Perhaps just their debut album? Here's the WP Policy which forbids WP from having a large collection of images with little to no text: Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY The pictures must be presented in an encyclopedic context. I would expect to see a maximum of 1 album cover perhaps, if any at all, unless there were some highly notable features on the cover. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are just used in a gallery. I'm not sure this is tolerated. --Damiens.rf 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think all of these album covers can be handled with this template [1], I don't have time to deal with it right now, but perhaps someone else could. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, all of the images exhibited in the Auditorium were donated for public use. The Municipality of Ponce should be able to confirm this, but I only found a phone number (787-284-4141) and physical address (Municipio Autónomo de Ponce, Apartado 331709, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00733-1709) for contact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- This could be resolved with an otrs mail, where they say the own the copyrights and donate it to the public domain. --Damiens.rf 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, all of the images exhibited in the Auditorium were donated for public use. The Municipality of Ponce should be able to confirm this, but I only found a phone number (787-284-4141) and physical address (Municipio Autónomo de Ponce, Apartado 331709, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00733-1709) for contact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soundconsulting (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Copyright status unknown. Image was just downloaded from a web forum. Damiens.rf 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society has a photo of an eldery Gómez holding a photo of his younger self here. We might be able to get their permison to use it under a ticket. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from a homage website that does not attributes the image. Damiens.rf 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tis widely used, including at the vatican. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- The image is certainly widespread, it is the only photo of him that I have seen published. And not only published, but published in every single major paper, including Primera Hora, El Nuevo Día and El Vocero. Regardless, the Diócesis de Caguas is the entity responsible for his beatification, not to mention the one that has used the image most, they can be contacted for relevant information here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tis widely used, including at the vatican. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- No copyright info. Image just download from a website the uses images without attribution. Damiens.rf 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this one should be kept. The source is not a tribute site but a respectable educational online resource endorsed by the Puerto Rican Department of Education. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it doesn't seems much worried about copyrights or attribution. Wikipedia uses a higher standard. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony, this is a respectable online source in Puerto Rico. , I suggest we stop the accusations, unless we have clear evidence that this institution is violating copyright law. --Jmundo (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The page has a "Derechos Reservados" pages that explains their instance on use of copyrighted work.
- "Ocasíonalmente hacemos referencia a material expuesto, difundido, divulgado y publicado en Internet sin restricciones o desautorización de sus autores, y se presenta tal y como fue divulgado en la World Wide Web, sin alteraciones."
- Basically, they say the copy stuff from the internet whenever it has not been explicitly unauthorized. And:
- "Proyecto Salón Hogar retirará, cualquier imagen y/o artículo que sea reclamado como propio por cualquier autor y para ello se deberá mostrar evidencia inequívoca de su © autoría intelectual y/o ® registro."
- Basically, they say they will remove any content if you prove unequivocally you own the copyrights.
- They instance on copyrights is one that reverts the rights. They use any content they feel in need and expect the copyright holder to go after them. We should never use images sourced this website. They are not a source in the sense of NFCC. --Damiens.rf 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright page clearly says that not all images are free, some are copyrighted. They make a blanket statement that they believe they are within fair-use policies. Unfortunately WP's policies are much more strict, in that they demand proper documentation, and images on WP should be free of copyright unless there is no possible alternative. I feel strongly that this particular website could not be used as a source for statements of copyright. We could pose the question to Media copyright questions if you would like. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, well, my understanding was that the scope of this project was to "fix" the images with problems, but this is looking more like a deletion discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way, but I've spent a lot of time already looking for free pictures to replace the images here that have problems. I'm not saying to delete this photo at all, just find a better source for the documentation. I'll keep looking, and I'd encourage you to do the same. Don't worry, you've got until April 22nd. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright page clearly says that not all images are free, some are copyrighted. They make a blanket statement that they believe they are within fair-use policies. Unfortunately WP's policies are much more strict, in that they demand proper documentation, and images on WP should be free of copyright unless there is no possible alternative. I feel strongly that this particular website could not be used as a source for statements of copyright. We could pose the question to Media copyright questions if you would like. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The page has a "Derechos Reservados" pages that explains their instance on use of copyrighted work.
- I agree with Tony, this is a respectable online source in Puerto Rico. , I suggest we stop the accusations, unless we have clear evidence that this institution is violating copyright law. --Jmundo (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it doesn't seems much worried about copyrights or attribution. Wikipedia uses a higher standard. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
January 13th
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
January 13 is the 13th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 23 (113th day).
January 18th
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
January 18 is the 18th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 28 (118th day).
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- No source. Damiens.rf 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed - Sourced. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, double check this source. I've consulted a copy of this book and there's no such image on page 154. --Damiens.rf 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is strange indeed, because I also have a copy and and it has the same picture, I wonder if your copy is a different edition. I cn check other books, but it is strange. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a link to google books of p. 154 of this book: [5] While it wouldn't include the actual image in the google result, it does place a "Copyrighted Image" placeholder there, and there is none. This book is available in my local library, so I could consult it later this week if needed. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is strange indeed, because I also have a copy and and it has the same picture, I wonder if your copy is a different edition. I cn check other books, but it is strange. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, double check this source. I've consulted a copy of this book and there's no such image on page 154. --Damiens.rf 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I checked other books and NADA. However, in the Fall Of Saigon Marine Association, LtCol. Jim Kean, USMC, in his "after action report April 17 - May 7, 1975", states that the picture was taken while MSgt Valdez was receiving awards for the Fall of Saigon (Operation Frequent Winds) [6]. The image was taken while the subject in question was a member (employee) of the United States Military in his military uniform and included in the USMC "After Action Report" prepared by LtCol. Jim Kean, who was in command of the embassy evacuation on April 30, 1975, hence a work of the United States Government. The copyright holder is the person who took the image which in this case was by an employee or member of the United States Military during the course of the person's official duties for a Federal institution which in this case was the United States Military. The image by appaering in an official US military document is PD. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you can know that it was taken by an employee of the US Military? If you look at the picture here: [7] you can see that text is bleeding through from the backside. Perhaps this was printed in a newspaper and the photo was taken by the press? - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also while the link you provided may have the transcript of the "After Action Report" I highly doubt those were the pictures included, especially since there's a photo of a 25th anniversary reunion there as well as a photo of the author's own grave. I was wondering what the caption is for the photo was in the book you originally cited? I'll take a look at the book tomorrow.- Chromatikoma (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I seriously believe that it was taken by an employee of the US Military during the decoration ceremonies as being a member of the Marine Corps myself know is common practice. These images are normally taken by photographers who belong to the Public Relations section of the Corps. They in turn distribute these images to the press or publish them in the military media such as "Stars and Stripes". To my knowledge this image has never been published in any public newspaper. As far as I'm concerned, this image could be deleted, I could care less, but we have more then enougth time to find a source and that is good. Chromatikoma, I appreciate your help. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Not found on source. Nothing known about copyright (seems like a cropped photo). Damiens.rf 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- As with some files above, this one needs a fair use rationale that explain why it is ok for us to use this copyrighted image. --Damiens.rf 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It has a fair use rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- The current rationale does a poor job in explaining why we are we ok to use this image without permission from the copyright holder (that's what a fair use rationale is all about). The rationale only explains why the image is valuable to Wikipedia, followed by "Will not replace commercial use of image". --Damiens.rf 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It has a fair use rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- As with some files above, this one needs a fair use rationale that explain why it is ok for us to use this copyrighted image. --Damiens.rf 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It also states that it will be "used only in non-profit educational Wikipedia". The fair use rationale used is the same that appears on Wikipedias criteria of what a fair use rationale is. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- As explained in #File:O'Niell2.jpg, being non-profit and educational is not a carte blanche for using unauthorized copyrighted works. --Damiens.rf 13:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can you be more helpful here? What exactly you don't like about the fair use rationale for this image? It does has a proper source, do we have to ask for authorization when using an image under the Fair use policy? --Jmundo (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, fair use is exactly for using copyrighted images (or text) without permission from the copyright holder. We need some rationale for justifying such use, and what "I don't like" is that we have no such rationale on this case. That the image is useful for our purposes is not enough to make our use fair. --Damiens.rf 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then, we are reading a different description page because then one for this file has a proper rationale based on WP:NFCC. --Jmundo (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think one of the major issues is this policy Wikipedia:NFCC#8: "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Item 8 reads "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
- Third pillar of Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. I'm just not seeing the reason why we MUST use a non-free photo of him for the article. I wouldn't say that it helps the article necessarily, and it certainly doesn't increase my understanding of the subject. Perhaps if he had a large birthmark on his forehead like Gorbachev, then the photo would be necessary to illustrate this, and the photo would be discussed in the article as it is in the Gorbachev article. In that case, the photo is definitely necessary to illustrate the subject. But really here, it doesn't seem that it would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject not to have his face there. Of course the best solution is to find a free image, which should be out there. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another way of tackling this issue is to contact the author an ask if he will release the photo into the public domain or a CC-BY-SA3.0 license: [8] and fill out an OTRS release. Here's the author's contact information if someone would like to request it: [9] - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then, we are reading a different description page because then one for this file has a proper rationale based on WP:NFCC. --Jmundo (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, fair use is exactly for using copyrighted images (or text) without permission from the copyright holder. We need some rationale for justifying such use, and what "I don't like" is that we have no such rationale on this case. That the image is useful for our purposes is not enough to make our use fair. --Damiens.rf 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can you be more helpful here? What exactly you don't like about the fair use rationale for this image? It does has a proper source, do we have to ask for authorization when using an image under the Fair use policy? --Jmundo (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- As explained in #File:O'Niell2.jpg, being non-profit and educational is not a carte blanche for using unauthorized copyrighted works. --Damiens.rf 13:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see a problem regarding WP:NFCC#2. The "rationale" does states "Will not replace commercial use of image", but give us no reason to believe that. Saying so does not makes it so. One way of making this statement acceptable would be providing a source for the statement "Image is early 1980's used as promotional", since promotional images are intended for wide distribution, and it's reuse does not replace it's original value. But I believe the "used as promotional" is probably mistaken on this case. --Damiens.rf 14:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Chromatikoma, I tried the link that you provided with the intention of getting an OTRS permit, but it led to nowhere. If you could get me the exact address, I'll do it. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, please try again. I also had some trouble with that page loading. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I just tried again and it loaded. It's his University page, has a mailing address, phone number, email address. Here's the contact link again [10] - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. Chromatikoma, now it worked fine. I wrote to Mr. Mayo-Santana to ask for his permission to use the image. If he agrees then I'll send him the OTRS permit slip for his signature. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Image copied from a news source lacks a solid rationale that explains why is it ok to ignore NY Time's rights on this photo. Damiens.rf 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I want to avoid conflicts, so give me an image that holds an example of the rationale that you want. That way I will be able to fix it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Every use has a different rationale. In this case, this is a picture copied from a news source that is not famous by itself. I personally think there isn't much we can do about it. --Damiens.rf 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The only hope here is to find a free picture of the guy, not one that is clearly copyrighted. I looked around a bit but was unable to locate one. - Chromatikoma (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I read through the article and noticed that he went by the name Vic Power for the majority of his career. If you search for this name you get a ton of baseball card images,
which I would guess could be used freely since they are clearly promotional items.Here's a half decent image, but there are many others available: [16] - Chromatikoma (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC) - I talked it over with an IP lawyer friend of mine. He said that use probably would *not* fall within fair use. They aren't true promotional items - they are a good that is sold. I would suggest though that people searching for a free image search using Vic Power as well, since there seems to be more published under that name. -Chromatikoma (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is an uphill battle, at least the first few pages of Google searches bring a lot of MLB/collector's card images. Flickr does not have anything under "Victor Pellot" and a buch of random images of some band for "Vic Power". - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I read through the article and noticed that he went by the name Vic Power for the majority of his career. If you search for this name you get a ton of baseball card images,
- The only hope here is to find a free picture of the guy, not one that is clearly copyrighted. I looked around a bit but was unable to locate one. - Chromatikoma (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Every use has a different rationale. In this case, this is a picture copied from a news source that is not famous by itself. I personally think there isn't much we can do about it. --Damiens.rf 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I want to avoid conflicts, so give me an image that holds an example of the rationale that you want. That way I will be able to fix it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
January 30th
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
January 30 is the 30th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 10 (130th day).
February 1
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
February 1 is the 32th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 12 (132th day).
- Tom Vazquez (notify | contribs | uploads). – uploaded by
- Montage that does not credits the individual photographies used. Damiens.rf 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I placed a notice in the uploaders talk page. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
February 8th
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg/100px-Bundesstra%C3%9Fe_100_number.svg.png)
February 8th is the 39th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 19 (139th day).