Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 4

How do we handle images that have improper licenses? Is there a template that can be added to the image page or do we fix it or ifd it? The image in question is Image:Apple-store backsoon-mwsf07.png. The image is obviously a screenshot of the Apple website. But the uploader marked it as {{PD-self}} which is incorrect. I'm thinking of nominating it for IFD because it would need the fair use {{Web-screenshot}} template but it would also need fair use rationale which I don't feel like providing. So, what should I do?--NMajdan•talk 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion. Notify the uploader. I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Xiner (talk, email) 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that the procedure for most images I run into with proper licenses?--NMajdan•talk 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• When I run into an image that is obviously incorrectly tagged as PD or other free alternative, I am
  bold and change the license. Usually it is one of the fair use tags; make sure to leave a good edit summary. If it is an orphan, nominate it using the speedy tag and notify the uploader. If it is in use, determine if it should be removed from the article (ie failing one of the fair use criteria) and orphan speedy tag it. If is useful, tag it with the new license as above and leave the rationale. You are adding the protection of wikipedia by fixing incorrectly tagged copyrighted images.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to edit any old broken image links if someone will simply tell me what the correct working syntax is. Cbdorsett 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you link one of the articles on which it is not working? —Celithemis 08:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not working: Ertebølle culture, Vinča culture, Linear Pottery culture - all of these images are the first image on the page.

Working:

Prehistoric Romania

- all of these images are NOT the first image on the page, and they are considerably smaller than the ones that don't work.

Now the image comes up on its own page, even after it was supposedly deleted. Something funky going on here. It's not my cache. Cbdorsett 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The image have been nominated for deletion, but not actualy deleted yet. And it works fine for me. Once the image is actualy deleted you don't need to do anything either. In this case the commons image have the same name as the "local" one, so once the image is deleted the commons image will automaticaly be used instead. No special syntax is needed to use images from commons, you use them exactly like you would a "local" image (if we have a local image with the same name the commons image can simply not be used (we need to delete the "local" image and alternatively upload it again under a different name to resolve the conflict). --Sherool (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If the names are the same it should work. Probably a caching issue. Try adding ?action=purge to the end of the URL on the image page (might have to do it on commons). That should ensure that the thumbnails are regenerated. If that doesn't help, clear your browser cache and try again. --Sherool (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the second time in the last several weeks, an image has mysteriously disappeared from Wikipedia (in this case Image:Bob Bergen.jpg), and I can find no discussion of it being nominated for deletion in the back archives. Is there some way to search IfD? Robert K S 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 10/Images. The reason for the deletion of an image is usually found in its log. —xyzzy_n 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To find a deletion discussion, click Image:Bob Bergen.jpg, then "What links here". Conscious 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello all,

The last few months I've seen a lot of images which have been deleted, but have not been removed from relevant pages. The result is a thorougly ugly Wiki! For example, take a look at History of Bulgaria; in the middle of the article several images are now redlinked. On a plethora of other articles, I've seen the same, but up until now have always thought the problem would solve itself.

These redlinked images are, of course, silly. I dont know the procedures here (and I'm fine with not knowning), but I suggest that somebody who does takes a look to refine them. If people deem images delete-worthy, then people should perhaps also remove them from their respective pages.

Good luck! Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things: Would having a template that would say something like "This image was nominated for deletion but was kept", with the name of "ifd-keep" be useful? It would be very small and along the lines of the AFD-keep and REFU-keep types. I realize that there are very few images that actually get kept from IFD, but this might be useful for the few images that survive.

Also, would the admins like a script add-on tool that they would put into their monobook.js (or other style) where again, for the few images that are kept, they would click a link next to the name or edit of the image that says "keep" and it would open a new browser tab with the image on it and remove the IFD tag (or maybe replace it with the above IFD-keep) and save the image. A little less redundant work for the hard-working IFD admin regulars I hope. It would probably be possible to add a "delete" capability as well, which might be even more useful. The "keep" might be prone to abuse (though someone that installs it to just click "keep" on all the images is a lot more work that just removing the IFD tag alone, but it's still possible) so there may need to be some kind of control for that, though it seems unlikely and if abused, reverting their work and warning them would probably be a better task, and editing the monobook to remove the script.

Any thoughts on this, or does any other IFD regular have any idea to make things better at IFD? The new

Re Image:Waitara 1.jpg and Image:Waitara 2.jpg: I received the requested permission for usage of these images on Wikipedia from the copyright owner and forwarded these to the address I was given ('permissions-enATwikimediaDOTorg' on Feb 1. I have now copied her letter to the image pages. If I have failed to do anything in order to keep these two images on the Waitara, New Zealand entry, please let me know before deleting these images. Thanks Grimhim 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like any input you guys have to offer, I'm just going to copy the details from the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 2.

The bot makes a list from Category:Images and media for deletion, checks the page on the list to see if they have been listed on an IFD page for the last 20 days, if not list them on the that days IFD page. The bot's code is mostly done and I will be running tests posting to a user subpage rather than to IFD. If anybody thinks this bot should have it's own account (IFDBot?) or the current account (BJBot) should be renamed to something else (ImageBot?) please make a note of it.

A report is being generated here,

I think it's fine for your bot to have more than one function, so long as its edit summaries clearly indicate what it's doing. —Remember the dot (t) 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Livers.jpg. This image has been deleted once then re-uploaded. The PETA website copyright page[6] says "Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use. Materials which are copyrighted, including, without limitation, text, videos, and photographs, may not be reproduced, retransmitted, or used for other than personal use without PETA's express written consent."

Obviously a lawyer didn't write their disclaimer. PETA appears to be disclaiming copyright in the first section "Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely" and then they put limitations on use "for personal, noncommercial use."

Wikipedia can't host "personal use" nor "noncommercial use". So my reading is that PETA is not disclaiming copyright but freely giving "personal, noncommercial use" licenses. And - that would not apply to us.

Any other take on this policy question? SchmuckyTheCat 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue has come up at least once before. I had a conversation here about their images. This PETA site [7] says, "PETA does not copyright anything. Please copy these recordings and send them to anyone you think should hear them (clergy, friends, etc.)." When I found that and had it confirmed by this user's statement of what the head of PETA said, I was content to accept it as the case. It may be worth actually contacting PETA to find out the answer to this question - I've noticed a handful of their images that we couldn't use as fair use but are purported to be free. --BigDT 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they don't seem to quite understand how copyright works. They say "PETA does not copyright anything" as if copyrighting were a process that you have to actively go through. It used to be, in the U.S., but hasn't been since 1978, IIRC. Nowadays every creative work, including photographs, is automatically protected by copyright unless the creator explicitly releases all or some rights. I'd write them and ask for someone in their legal department (I assume they have one) to clarify whether the images are free for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial use and the creation of derivatives. Perhaps tell them about the

gr 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we get a statement they are freely licensing their images, the "noncommercial" part of their statement makes it restricted-use for which we should delete all PETA images on the spot. --MECU≈talk 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PETA generally disclaim copyright. I have been involved in getting permission for Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg and it was successful, but it's always good to get in contact with a PETA official to be on the safe side. See WP:COPYREQ for more info. Ekantik ^talk 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, This log is organized in the reverse from other similar pages, such as

To solve this, fix to:

== Recent nominations ==
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION -- these are the listings from the last 5 days, put here automatically! -->
{{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/{{#time:Y F j}}}}
{{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/{{#time:Y F j|-1 day}}}}
{{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/{{#time:Y F j|-2 days}}}}
{{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/{{#time:Y F j|-3 days}}}}
{{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/{{#time:Y F j|-4 days}}}}
<!-- END -->

Since I'm new to this particular page, I don't know the norm, nor am I going to change it. Someone who is, please consider this change.
Consistency please!+mwtoews 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed

Wtih this in mind, I was wondering if someone could go kick ass and take some names down at

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters. There are at least 55+ images on that page, and I don't feel like nominating them all in one mega bunch. Hbdragon88 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has actually changed yet. Doing anything based on that would be groundless. --MECU≈talk 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that statement is not a change in policy. The use of fair-use images on pages like

gr 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

General note, that discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement.↔NMajdan•talk 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone here deal with Image:Potassium alum.jpg? it is certainly not showing potassium alum! Also needs removing from that page. Carcharoth 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that there used to an image of potassium alum at that name, but it got deleted for not having a license. I deleted the new image for being vandalism. The issue I guess is that nobody removed the original image from the article after it got deleted.

chat} 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)