Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 7

August 21
Jcart1534 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Drug website surveys LSD users and culture/Comments
No actual article, just a talk page that is not formatted for reading with personal opinion. Almost no objective facts (and no sources). Didn't see anything newsworthy. -- CocoaZen 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment: there is an article for it. And this is a comments page, wheich is used to express an opinion on the story. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Discussions
We now have a comments tab for Wikinews users to comment on-site. No need to drive users away. Thunderhead - (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete - Even before the Opinion pages this seems inappropriate. Also, it asks Wikinewsies to vouch for outside websites (as to their permanence and broad viewpoints). Wholly unworkable if you ask me. Thankfully, no articles in the main space are using this template (I removed it from one that was in development). --SVTCobra 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Forums often have considerably better information than articles on which they are based.  You can always kill an inappropriate or uninformative link on those grounds.  There is zero reason to believe such links "drive users away", but there is tons of evidence that useful links keep people around a site.  It's the outgoing links that make a site interesting.  And it's been pretty obvious for a *long* time that their limitation is one reason we're still getting our ass kicked.  Nyarlathotep 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Forums often have considerably better information than articles on which they are based. That is highly debatable, but I don't think Wikinews should be policing the content of off-site forums and checking if we should kill an inappropriate or uninformative link. With the Opinion pages we can keep readers that want to discuss the news here. I agree the Discussions template doesn't "drive" readers away, but it does "lead" them away. --SVTCobra 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but deprecate - this template has been used, however I don't think it should be used further. MessedRocker (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag . Let's slide this off of DR already. irid:t 04:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

July 19
 Daniel  09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Major or minor
All of our stories are featured on the main page through a Dynamic Page List, so this page is, in essence, useless, unless we want to keep it for historical purposes.
 * Delete Thunderhead - (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with historical. If we ever get to the point where we need to start deciding what we want to put on the main page it might be useful to be able to refer to this proposal. Adambro 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and make historical. Wow, that was ambitious indeed. Even if we disregard that we don't have enough content to do what that policy proposes, imagine the delays in reporting news if stories had to sit through a major/minor vote before they could be published! --SVTCobra 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and historical. I agree with the above. - Andrew4010 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Al-Jazeera

 * 1) We do not have Category:BBC or Category:CNN
 * 2) Misused category, sometimes for stories about al-Jazeera (we only have two), and more often for stories that AJ reported on, which is totally arbitrary
 * 3) Due to #2, also gives a negative impression of the news agency, by linking it inextricably with terrorist actions. Americans seem to have enough trouble differentiating between al-Qaeda and al-Jazeera . Sherurcij 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or fix to be only stories about Al-Jazeera. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean out the inapropriate stories. There's enough actually about al-Jazeera to keep the category. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and filter.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Martinp23 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove any articles which aren't actually about AJ. Adambro 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per Adambro and Sandman. JoshuaZ 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - content should be limited to articles about Al Jazeera. --SVTCobra 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems that the large amount of content in this category is the result of an AWB run by BrianMc. See this for as an example . --SVTCobra 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment i'll review the articles in this category - reports about al-Jazeera will stay. reports dealing with what al-Jazeera reported (typically stories it broke) will stay only if the article reports something about al-Jazeera's reporting. –Doldrums(talk) 08:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

June 27
 Daniel  10:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ElmwoodHotel1.jpg and Image:ElmwoodHotel2.jpg

 * See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hotel2.jpg. Adambro 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of these are derivative works of artists impressions and as such are almost certainly copyright violations. -- Adambro 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep both: no they are not. they are not copies of the work they are photos. The renderings were not changed by the camera taking a picture. In order for deriviticves to be made, the actaul work in question has to be manipulated or altered in some way. These are not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry DF, I'm fairly certain Adambro is correct. Just because you took the picture does not necessarily mean you own the copyright. (Think about it this way, if someone took a picture of a photo you owned the copyright to (or scanned it), you would still own the copyright of the resulting picture). Bawolff ☺☻
 * Well sorry I disagree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So say I took Image:Buffalo Apartment Fire June25.07 pt9.jpg, printed it, photocopied it, Do you feel I own the copyright to the photocopied version? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that its licensed under a free license, you can technically do whatever you want with it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I can't copy without giving credit, and probably a bunch of other stuff depending on license. I can't sue someone from using the image not under the terms of whatever license you used
 * Comment: I've contacted the author of those images, he said he will call back in a bit, as he was at a meeting. I will update here after I hear back from him. terinjokes | Talk 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also called the Development firm, I await a call back from them as well. terinjokes | Talk 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also here is the definition of "derivative works" from the link above: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
 * A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material.
 * As far as I can see, those images listed here in the DR, do not even follow those "derivative" definitions. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still have not received a callback from those parties. If not resolved by then, I will try once more on Monday, but it seems it might be keep by then.... terinjokes | Talk 19:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's all bullcrap, like POV warriors. Nothing associated with the images has come under any copyright claim, yet an appearance here merely makes for a stupid diversion. Deal with what needs to be dealt with. -Edbrown05 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * to clarify, are you saying we shouldn't delete because no one has yelled at us, or we shouldn't delete because the claim that it is copyrighted by some development studio is invalid? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The clarification is, the Commons attitude in this request has me smelling salt for ressesitation <-- how does one spell that one? A news organization has got to do what it has got to do. If it crosses the line, then a speedy retraction would be in order. No camplaints = no retraction. That's my thinking. -Edbrown05 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experiance, most news agencies due retractions when the make a factual error, or if they misrepresent someoen. I have never heard anyone making a retraction for a copyright violation. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In all irony, have you ever heard a news agency making a retraction for photograph of an artist's rendition of a proposed mall? Bawolff, I know you understand this issue probably better than me. To let you be known how I feel, if you you put your stuff in the public, then the public has an opportunity to not only respond to it, but to report it. A copyright sort of fizzles when you go public with something. -Edbrown05 05:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could potentially argue fair use for these images. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately, but necessary? I doubt it. So Dragon took a picture, there's no problem with that (that I know of). An old adage, "Leave sleeping dogs lie." Another one is, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." -06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a picture of a copyrighted work, means the picture is copyrighted by the owner of the copyrighted work (or sometimes the owner of the copyrighted work and the photographer both). Bawolff ☺☻ 08:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I cannot understand the arguments to keep these two images. Put simply, If copyright laws don't exist to stop you copying someone elses work, what do they exist for? This is an exact copy of a copyrighted work, a derivative work. Adambro 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a derivative of a "copyrighted" 'artist' rendition's work. And it is, or was, also news. So it was published as a part of news story. The needs of Commons and their copyright necessities difer from the needs of Wikinews. I may have potentially many crappy photos, some of which might violate someone's supposed claim to a copyright. This one comes to mind. So are we to now go picking on that image because I do not have formal grant of license to publish that photo which arguably could be considered art? My argument is we don't have time to deal with legal miscellany over probable non-starter objections to photo content that falls on the lower end of being worth worrying about. The fuss isn't worth it. The dimension it adds to the news report is worth plying for. -Edbrown05 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I'm new here, but let me comment that if you all need the image, make a solid claim of fair use if it is not free. No need to claim that something is free if it is in fact not, because "we need it for a news article". Either claim fair use, or find that the image is indeed free. Personally I don't think the image is free. This is similar to saying an album cover for a music label is free because I took a picture of it, it is still the same copyrighted image. The way that the English wikipedia gets around these issues is to claim fair use. To put it short, this image is not free for me to modify. Please take this with a grain of salt as I've not been around the wikinews community long, and I'm still trying to figure out how to write a decent news article. I was going to do something on the release of the GPL v3 license, but I fear it is kinda, "old news" now :(. —— Eagle  101 Need help? 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Edbrown, as far as your image goes, I don't think anyone has a copyright on a whiteboard, and the messages that would be on it. If you took that image, then it is yours to do with as you please. There is no copyright on the whiteboard's messages. That is not the case with this image. —— Eagle  101 Need help? 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently no one actually read the derivatives section. So please read it. I am not going to explain myself any further as I am tired of repeating myself. These are CROPPED images that I took during a public city meeting in which they were presented to city officials. I took the picture and cropped it. Plain and simple. there is no changes to the work and therefore is not a derivative. These images have been around for more than a year and are part of an Original story. Again...read before writing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If copying an image isn't creating a derivative work, i.e a work based upon another, then what is? Adambro 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, provided issues can be resolved. Either claim fair use, or find some other way to retain. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've discussed this issue with the uploader who hasn't been able to address my concerns, hence this deletion request. Adambro 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just got in touch with Karl Frizlen. He asked that I send him an email detailing this, and he'll respond. So now we wait. terinjokes | Talk 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment we're not making much progress on this one, which leads me to conclude that we should be starting to think about deletion. I don't want to lose the images, but we need permission to use. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - while they are photographs they are derivative works. They could be used if the photos showed something other than the works and only the works. I think the best analogy is going to a movie theatre with a video camera. Sure, it's "own work" as far as filming, but it is derivative and a copyright violation. --SVTCobra 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous...read about derivative works. THESE ARE NOT DERIVATIVES. They are photos of the hotels with the background cropped out. Its that simple. If need be I will find more and will take a picture with my hand in front of it and that will be ok. So this argument is pointless. I know what my rights are especially in a PUBLIC meeting whereas the information contained in those meetings are a matter of public record. You cannot expect to go to a public city meeting, in the US and then say that everything you displayed in that meeting is copyright. I do not need permission from anyone to take pictures of what is contained in those meetings. And deleting those images is in fact, doing just that...taking away the right of public domain.


 * Why don't you guys look over the articles about the hotel. You will see which images are clearly copyrighted and have permission to use. Those images are clearly marked with the architects logo.


 * If the architect is not willing to help in this discussion, as he stated he would, thats not my fault, and technically he does not need to. I also have fliers, and press packets, with the same photos in them, all with no copyright markings. The only ones he has copyrighted, to mu knowledge are the ones that have a template. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon)
 * DragonFire, you say: They are photos of the hotels with the background cropped out. I say that they are clearly photos of an artists/architects computer rendering of what the hotels will/would look like when built. If they are closeup/cropped images of these renderings on a posterboard, presented at a cityhall-type meeting, I am unsure as to what extent that enters them into the public record. Didn't you say yourself, over at Commons, that this was a derivative work? --SVTCobra 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said any such thing. And yes, public meetings, at least in my county, are a matter of public record. Not only is it public record, but the public is allowed to attend, unannounced, as well as the media, at any meeting, including Common Council meetings. I have even several press packets, all of which include these renderings as well. If anyone wants to see those packets, as i told brianmc in IRC, send me the postage and money to make copies, and I will gladly send the packets, but one is nearly or close to 100 pages long. Not to mention, all this is free of charge to look up at the public record office in downtown buffalo in the basement of city hall, and the county offices. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You as an artist get your your stuff put up for public presentation, and the public will take it. The reason the artist of these works should not become upset is because that person has already been paid for their efforts. Now to argue that the artist be accorded derivative rights for their public and publicized efforts makes no sense. The deal is done before your stuff went up in the public face. -Edbrown05 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mobious, or whoever it was, owned the image at the point it was captured by Dragon. -Edbrown05 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever it was that "owned" the image, chose to make it public. -Edbrown05 08:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am getting to the point of not caring. Nobody is going to bother us over drawings of buildings that will never be built. I would like to get this DR closed. It has been open for three weeks. --SVTCobra 13:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - There does seem to be some confusion in the comments in favour of keeping these image. There is a big difference between something being free in the freely available sense and free in the you don't have to pay any money to use it sense. Simply displaying these images in public doesn't mean they are public domain licensed.
 * Whilst DragonFire1024 keeps trying to dismiss that these image are deviate works, I would reiterate my point that if copyright laws don't exist to stop others copying your work then what are they for? This is a straight copy of the artist's work; a copyright violation if I ever saw one. If these images should be retained then DragonFire1024 should re-licence them as publicity and use them under fair use. These images contain no work by DragonFire1024 so he is not in a position to licence them under GFDL and Creative Commons unless the rendering was in the public domain in a licensing sense which I doubt very much. Put simply, if these are not used under fair use they should be deleted as copyright violations. Adambro 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright was sold to the organization that chose to put it in the public domain. -Edbrown05 07:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only basis for this assertion that these images are in the public domain is that they have been made publicly available, this is most certainly not the same thing. I very much doubt a developer would release images of own of their projects as public domain for a number of reasons, one of which being that any campaign against the development would be able to manipulate the images in whatever way they choose. These images will have been released, in the sense that they are made available, for purposes of publicity and the copyright will remain. Adambro 09:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After a very long, and frankly unsatisfying experience with trying to keep this image published on Commons, I can say that derivative work claims are so weak that not even the authors/artists want to persue them. Your pursuit Adambro is pathetic, give it up. -Edbrown05 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument to keep these images as they are must be pretty weak if you are having to resort to suggesting I simply give up my "pursuit" and describe it as pathetic. Adambro 09:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. I relicensed them. I am sick of this harassment. I only did it otherwise they would have been deleted. I still state my protest of having to change them and will stand by what I believe is my right. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case this deletion request can be closed as my concerns have been addressed, for that I am grateful. Thank you DragonFire1024. Adambro 09:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Work against free, you are working the wrong way, -Edbrown05 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iranmap,1.gif
The image has been requested for deletion before, and there is a lengthy discussion on the image talk page. I've created a free alternative: Image:Location of British embassy, Tehran.jpg Image:Tehran British Embassy map.png which could serve exactly the same purpose, I request that the image now be deleted and replaced with the free alternative. At the time a fair use alternative might not have been available, and I support the fact that the image should not have been deleted before a free alternative has come available. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What program did you use to make the map and what was your reference for its location? DragonFire1024 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I used Photoshop, but I don't think that matters to it being freely licensed. I used the previous image as a reference, but that doesn't matter either: we are writing articles from references here too, and licensing them freely. So both are unimportant.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as free alternative is available. Adambro 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: DragonFire1024 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any particular reason? Adambro 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace image in the article with the free one. --SVTCobra 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Striking my vote because this is more steeped in policy and principle than I thought. --SVTCobra 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but mark as depreciated. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - What useful purpose does keeping an unused copyrighted image serve? Certainly on Wikipedia the policy is to delete orphaned fair use images. If a copyrighted image is not used then it cannot qualify as fair use so shouldn't be on Wikinews. Adambro 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should the image be removed/replaced on the article? It is my opinion that fair use applied during the time the image was used in the article, and it was on the main page. I believe our EDP needs to take this into account, and that our archives should be considered on the basis of "fair use at the time". This is why I propose a depreciated template as opposed to deletion of images that previously qualified as fair use.
 * The situations on Wikipedia - a continually evolving project, and Wikinews - a project with a small window of what is "current" are completely different. Consequently I believe we should depreciate or mark as superceded-by any image that was fair use during the reporting period but has a new free alternative. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Our archive policy says that the article should not be changed in contents after the period in which it is protected. Not to mention that as stated by Brian, this was fair use at the time. Crown as far as I know does not apply to this resolution. DragonFire1024 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must disagree with you both. To relate this to the archiving policy is in my view nonsense. The purpose of the policy is to ensure the article reflects the events at the time. Changing an image to a free alternative does not change this. Wikinews is very much like Wikipedia in which it desires to use free content wherever possible, policy here suggests that fair use images should be replaced wherever possible. A depreciated template as Brian describes for "images that previously qualified as fair use" would seem to go against the whole purpose of the fair use defence against accusations of copyright infringement. If an image no longer qualifies as fair use, it shouldn't be on Wikinews as it breaks copyright laws. Adambro 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Adambro - keeping the image once a free alternative is availible is illegal, and opens us up to copyright infringement civil litigation. I've done a fair bit of fair use stuff on Wikipedia, so I know what's legal, what's grey, and what's simply illegal, and this is illegal. Delete Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are actually wrong. It is not in violation of any copyright laws, Crown or in the US. It is actually used exatly as the agreement from crown states it to be. This is fair use according to Crown Copyright and according to any and all US copyright laws. The event at the time was the British embassy in Iran having a shoot out. That map reflects that news at the time the event happened therefore it does pertain to the archive policy. Once protected, those things should not be changed. These articles are "not a work in progress." The work on that article is done. DragonFire1024 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that changing the map will impact whatsoever on the angle of the article and so do not see the relevance of the archive policy. I don't believe that once an article is archived that "The work on that article is done", we should be constantly seeking to remove copyrighted material and so where a free alternative becomes available we should use that providing it does not change the angle. Certainly in the case of a map this is true. We cannot simply accept the use of copyrighted images, we must constantly review the situation to determine whether we can replace them with a free alternative. To keep the unfree image goes against the Fair use policy that states that "When two images depict the same subject, and one image is free content and the other is not, use the free version, even if it is inferior in quality." Adambro 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the fair use rationale that could be summed up as that the image is used because no free alternative is available is of course no longer valid. To be completely accurate it never was, saying that a map "could not be recreated without the use of copyrighted material/maps" is plainly untrue as that is what the OpenStreetMap project are doing. Adambro 18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot copy a map. from a copyrighted map, and then call it your own or "free." Wikinews accepts many copyrighted images such as ones marked with: . An example is: Image:Virgin Birth Hammerhead Doorly Zoo.JPG (also note the OTRS which I am willing to put this Iran image through as well). We are a news agency and we are not wikipedia and we have our own set of rules and policies. Our archive policy is what it is and it has been agreed upon the community since before I existed on here. Again the articles according to: WN:NOT are not a work in progress. once archived it is done and this image was fair use at the time it was added. Someone I know said We simply cannot make history more free. DragonFire1024 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears you misunderstand the OpenStreetMap, the new map image has been created without reference to copyrighted materials. You may like to familiarise yourself with how the OSM project works. Again I would disagree that anything in either policy you have quoted prevents us from making this change which will not impact on the angle of the article. Adambro 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * if you disagree with the policies, you can always start a poll or discuss the extent of them on the appropriate talk pages. We operate as a news agency where it is not possible for every single image we have to be 100% free 100% of the time. This image was fair use when it was uploaded and under that basis the archive and WN:NOT policy IMO stands. It is also fair Use under the US copyright laws. We can wait for others to comment because us arguing will not solve anything. DragonFire1024 18:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I do not disagree with policy, just your interpretation. I maintain that the fair use rationale is no longer valid considering it never was, as I've explained, and that a free alternative is now available. Adambro 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was valid and it was written from the resolution and fair use rational guidelines otherwise known as WN:EDP. So was a fair use rational. DragonFire1024 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use according to the US gov: § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38. DragonFire1024 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you have misunderstood the point I have been trying to make. Images used on Wikimedia projects are required to have a valid fair use rationale. The image does not meet this requirement and never has because it is not true to say that a map "could not be recreated without the use of copyrighted material/maps" and now the justification that we are using that image because a free alternative is not available is also not valid. Adambro 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - regarding the position of Brianmc and DragonFire1024. Do you agree that an image that is a clear copyvio should be removed from an article regardless of how long it has been there? If so, why not replace a fair-use image with a free one? If it were a portrait of a person would you have the same opinion? For example, replacing a screenshot of a politician with free portrait.--SVTCobra 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you guys are not understanding is that it was fair use when it was uploaded. Also it is not copyvio. It does not violate any law. It contains the required license as stated by Crown Copyright which is not affected. So I do not agree that it is copyvio. In regard to a screen shot it depends on A) Who the politician is B) Because each country has their own laws. C) What the screen shot is depicting. DragonFire1024 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am using examples ... you know ... hypotheticals. In the first example, let's call it #1. In #1, I not asking you to concede anything about whether Iranmap is a copyvio. I am merely asking you, hypothetically, if an article had a copyvio, would you agree it needs to be fixed. And if so, why wouldn't we replace a non-free image with a free one, that has substantially the same content? With example #1, I am trying to learn you think some retroactive changes are ok, but others are heresy. Example #2 I was trying keep as general as possible. Your questions A,B, and C, ought not be necessary, but nonetheless: A) The politician is a brand new on the scene, no one has a photo of him. B) The country (shouldn't much matter as I set it up here) we can say is the USA and the politician has just announced himself as candidate for mayor of Buffalo, NY. C) Wikinews has used a screenshot of a locally televised press conference to illustrate the story, showing the politician from the chest up - fair use as no free alternative is available. Later, the politician sets up a website where he specifically releases a portrait (also from the chest up) under CC-BY 2.5. Now shouldn't we replace this fair-use image with the free one? I use example #2 because I know for a fact similar replacements have been made in the past here on Wikinews. Also, I believe we have replaced locally uploaded images with images from Commons, even if they are not completely identical. --SVTCobra 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Say the same situation, and the time frame is 2 maybe 5 years. So we should delete that image and replace it with a new one? No. That image, the screen shot in your example, is of what is happening that moment in time, not what happened 2 or 5 years later. If the article is about him announcing his candidacy, and the screen shot is from that event, and the new image, as you put it, is one he releases to the public, not of the announcement, we should replace it? No, again its not covering what was happening at that moment. DragonFire1024 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, I do not understand how it was fair use when it was uploaded. The justification is that no free alternative could be created however that clearly isn't true and now such an alternative is available the fair use rationale is even more invalid. Adambro 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The justification is when the image was uploaded, as fair use, as it says by Crown Copyright (read the Crown agreement) there was no requirement for any kind of fair use rational whatsoever. DragonFire1024 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair use rationale is required for all non-free images as per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which also states that "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Adambro 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The EDP exists presicely for that. If that were the case, then there would be no EDP. DragonFire1024 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Adambro 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The EDP is what the fair use rational and fair use is. If the resolution says what you state above, then there is no EDP, and thats false. The EDP exists for exactly this kind of image. DragonFire1024 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The EDP is not some kind of blanket fair use rationale, as per the the resolution "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale", and as I said previously, "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Both of these support my opinion that the image should be deleted and replaced in articles by the free image. Adambro 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Per SVTCobra's query, a copyvio should be removed - although if it has made it into the archives a note should be attached detailing that an image has been removed. The thinking that forms my position where I say we keep this image is that this was the image that the majority of readers saw. If they come back to the article in 6 months time it should look the same - or have a note as to why it has been changed. We are different from Commons or Wikipedia; should non-free images of politicians be deleted and replaced with ten-years older or more recent free images? I think not, that would not represent what was known at the time. This map may seem like a trivial replacement, but it is a principle that what was published until it fell off the main page is what should stay in the archive. Our primary purpose is more informative than educational, and I am - sad to say - of the opinion that the Policy the board has issued has not taken this into account. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * comment. That was really confusing argument, so I might of missed something, but here is how I see it. First off, we can legally (remember IANAL) use the image under the terms of crown copyright (although that is not considered free), or we can use it under fair use (contrary to popular belief, the only reason we need a rationale, is it is wikimedia's way to make sure we are only using it when we absolutely have to, as we (we being majority of people) that we should have all free content when possible. Also of note is our image use policy (which was created way before the controversial foundation policy) - WN:FU, says that if there is a freer image available, we have to replace it. Last of all, I'd like to point out the new image is in the wrong format. To sum up my rambling comment, I think we need to come up with a policy (outside of this DR) on how to deal with images in archived articles (not just for when better alternatives exist, but when they get deleted from commons, should we remove them, or put a note or what). Happy editing Bawolff ☺☻ 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking into account that this is not as straightforward as on Wikipedia, Commons, or other projects that strive to be current. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea, and exactly what we need: a policy (outside of this DR) on how to deal with images in archived articles. What do you mean by "the image is in the wrong format"?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a minnor point, but jpeg is an inappropriate format for things like diagrams or pretty much anything that is not a photo. PNG or SVG should be used instead (because of how compression works in jpg). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know it has now been suggested to move this discussion to policy, but I just had the thought that "fair use" or EDPs are incompatible with CC-BY 2.5. If we (Wikinews) extend to anyone the right to use our works in any manner they see fit, it doesn't seem right that we use "fair use" images. How can we know if the way we use an image is going to be used fairly by them? Should we ban "fair use" in new articles and debate what to about the archives later? Just some thoughts. --SVTCobra 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * People can use the text of our articles under the cc-by 2.5 (except for one's before 2005, they are not copyrighted whatsoever). The images on the other hand have various copyright situations. reusers either have to not use the images, or examine if there copyright situation is acceptable. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is someone (an outside person who wants to reproduce Wikinews content) to know that images are treated differently? I certainly don't see it here: CC-BY 2.5. But alas, I am not a lawyer. --SVTCobra 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: what you guys (especially Brianmc) are totally missing, is that archived articles get changed here every day: when an image gets deleted on Commons, we remove the redlink or replace it with an alternative. Basically, the text is the stable archived content, the images are a different aspect, cannot be archived, and I agree with Adambro that you cannot misinterpret the archiving policy to make them untouchable.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand this is a consensus discussion, but everyone should accept that they might not have the same understanding of copyright laws -that goes for me as well, and most of my ideas are my own interpretations, so if you're not a lawyer, be prepared to accept what others are saying, that's all I'm saying.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Yes, but I don't think this is about copyright law. From a copyright prespective (note IANAL) we can use this image. What this is addressing is, is it appropriate under both wikimedia (the free image resolution) and wikinews policy (WN:FU [specifically WN:FU ], WN:IUP Archive conventions) to replace the image. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We never said we agreed with common and they way they do things. What they are missing is that it would be nice if they told us since those image, 90% of the time, have been uploaded for over a year. The archive policy is not an excuse its a fact. The only reason the Commons Ticker exists is because Commons, whatever their problem is, does not want to work with us. DragonFire1024 00:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be so hard on Commons, they just have a different goal (serving free media). If we would agree to have an archive policy that overrules deletion of non-free images, we could work with Commons admins to undelete images and locally upload them. But I think our goal is Free News -maybe a notice that an image has been replaced would be a good compromise.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not being hard on them. This is a massive issue and they could, from ym experience, care less the damage it does to Wikinews. We have a bot just to deal with them. No matter how much we protect an article, the image will get deleted. Commons is the one who overrides our policy. DragonFire1024 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand this "us" and "them". Commons is just as open a project as any other so if editors here have problems they can of course raise them there. Commons is a massive benefit to Wikinews and taking this attitude is very unconstructive.


 * Any images deleted from Commons have of course been deleted for a reason. Commons doesn't overule Wikinews policy, if an image is in violation of Commons policy then it is perfectly acceptable for it to be deleted, which will of course result in it disappearing from articles here. If an image is used it is however of course wise to ensure that the image doesn't simply vanish from articles, if it can be uploaded here under fair use. This demands cooperation with Commons admins, not hating them and refusing to upload free media.


 * Anyway, the issue of Commons seems to have little influence of the deletion of this image or not so perhaps we should concentrate on this, it seems to me that some users are happy to see any mention of Commons as an invitation to express their misguided view on the project and in doing so, further delay discussion of the real issues. Can we get back to the debate as to whether we should delete this copyrighted image and replace it with a free alternative? Adambro 10:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple..its Crown Copyright. Read their license agreement. If someone does not like their license, tell that to them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

110 North Koreans killed in explosion
Old news - quite short as well. --Mark Talk 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This news is not old. The explosion happened 10 days ago.  but the information has just come out of the dprk.  This makes it NEW news . Maximusnukeage 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree here, actually. New sources means current news. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, so when am I allowed to remove the tab calling for the deletion of my article? Maximusnukeage 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's 3 of us say keep. I say one more then tag it as ready again. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This story has just come out and is being reported for the first time by AP and other news wires today. The fact that it is short is not a reason for deletion. --SVTCobra 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to "speedy keep" this? IMO this is not even close to being a legitimate DR. --SVTCobra 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yes there is. WP:IAR. –Doldrums(talk) 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with SVTCobra. Adambro 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll remove the DR tag. -Edbrown05 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Wars Episode III poster.jpg
A fair use image with no source. For it to be a legally-acceptable fair use image, it must have the source listed.  Daniel  06:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --SVTCobra 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Problem seems to have been fixed. --SVTCobra 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've uploaded a new version of the file, and added a source; don't know why no-one did that in the first place. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Fair Use. DragonFire1024 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... speechless. Sherurcij 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... speechless. Sherurcij 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pianoman.JPG
A fair use image with no source. For it to be a legally-acceptable fair use image, it must have the source listed.  Daniel  06:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --SVTCobra 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Problem seems to have been fixed. --SVTCobra 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've uploaded a new version of the file, and added a source; don't know why no-one did that in the first place. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. court adds limit to police searches

 * Delete Has only one source, of which does not work. DragonFire1024 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep has been published for too long to make disappear. --SVTCobra 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then sources need to be found, or we deal with a massive template noting the "correction." Cannot have an article with no verifiable sources. DragonFire1024 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add this source: NPR --SVTCobra 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep —Zachary talk 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep problem has cleared up Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vitorlas4.jpg
This image was made by User:Kádár Tamás and is only used on his/her's userpage. Since this is not being used in any news articles it should be uploaded to commons instead. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. DragonFire1024 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the user images on Video 2.0/Newsreader should be uploaded to commons and deleted here. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder for any images transfered to commons that are user photos, should be tagged category:Wikimedians. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iranmap,1.gif
There is a lengthy discussion on the talk page of this image. I - personally - do not believe it should be deleted and want to test-case the new image policy. Can someone provide a fair use rationale? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can understand why it shouldn't be fair use: (1) The image adds very little to the article, and the article will not be disrupted if we remove the article (it doesn't seem to interfere with our archive functions to me) (2) anyone with a little photoshop skill could create a free alternative, so this is in no way a unique picture that needs to be here. Working on illustrations is not squandering away your time, it's a reasonable part of an article, if you believe a diagram helps. I've added diagrams or illustrations on Wikipedia articles with my limited skills. If that's the problem, we should set up a page were people could ask for illustrators.
 * On the other hand, I'd like someone to explain why Crown Copyright images aren't acceptable; aren't all the four freedoms met?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep For one I am not going to waste my time nor am I going to tell anyone else to waste their time to make a map using photoshop or any imaging software. That's ridiculous. This image does add to the article. 1) location 2) it happened at the embassy 3) there is no other map available. DragonFire1024 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also there are no images on commonc of the British embassy in Tehran. There is also nothing on the embassy's website. I have looked trust me. But as brianmc says...if one crown goes, then why keep any of the others, as they are not affected. DragonFire1024 06:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reasonable case that there cannot be a free content replacement.--Eloquence 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My "reasonable case that there cannot be a free content replacement" is that there was no free content replacement within the window of opportunity available to Wikinews. I'd put a hard and fast timeline on that - it's 10 days. After that our articles should be archived and become history.  We're not wikipedia, we don't work like wikipedia, and we're not eternally fiddling with existing content.     To give an example, if we have articles about GWB now - and they have less than perfectly free images - should we change them for free images when they become available fifteen years later? It might suit an evolving encyclopedia but it does not suit a news site that "fixes" their articles as a statement of what was known at a point in time. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Stevenfruitsmaak said, is there a reason why not allowing misleading reproductions are evil? Personally I don't think such things should be covered by copyright (thats other laws jobs) but if it is, is it that horrible? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the software used to make the map, where did you get the map, how did you obtain it...etc etc...and we add that to just about any image that would require PhotoShop, etc. And we are not commons. If someone is so concerned about making our own images, then tell commons to do that. DragonFire1024 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but with the GIMP, software isn't that great an argument, but it still takes time and skill, and we have a limited window of opportunity. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Brian on this one as well. What was allowed at the time the image was uploaded, prioir to the WMF's "resolution", should not be affected. Especially Grant Of Licenses. Many users, including myself, have gone through great troubles and lengths to get permission for those photos to be used in certain articles. Thats what news is about in regards to images...It is impossible. for all images in the news reporting world to be 100% free 100% of the time. DragonFire1024 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And also, quite frankly, some of us who do have that permission, should be lucky we got it without having to pay for it in $$$$$ like the AP or others do. DragonFire1024 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tomstephens1.jpg
No fair use rationale, breaking news tag, no source listed, although the article says it's from the person's MySpace profile. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepIf can be sourced, then a fair use rational can be written for it. We have just under one year to do so. DragonFire1024 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no source, means it must be deleted. I haven't even evaluated whether it's justifiable fair use, either - I suspect it wouldn't be.  Daniel  06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If one of the commons admins round here (cough Adambro) wants to check commons here they will find a deleted version of the image that i uploaded, which i think had the correct source (was a long time ago).--Mark Talk 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the source on Commons is only listed as being MySpace, I'm not sure if that is adequate. I understand there to be at least two Tom Stephens profiles on MySpace, one which may be fake and a real one which was deleted. This I understand is probably fake, whereas this one is apparently the real one. Based upon that, the source of the image could be either. Adambro 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if it is from the real MySpace page, is there any way to know if this really is the guy? People put fake images of themselves on MySpace all the time. For all we know this could be some random bloke. Also, Tom Stephens is not who the police are pursuing now in the 2006 Ipswich murder investigation but rather Steven Wright. --SVTCobra 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is a significant part of the article it is in identifying the person. Yes there is ALWAYS a risk of an image of someone being fake, but we have no way to prove or disprove that. A search on the users MySpace name can be done and if the image is there, a source can be provided. It is not really our responsibility to decide if this user is or is not telling the truth. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not our responsibility? Using MySpace as a source of images is like using blogs as legitimate news sources. I could create a MySpace account with anybody's name and upload any image as the "user" and then turn around and use it as a picture to "identify" that person in a Wikinews article? You've got to be kidding. --SVTCobra 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to just a comment. I guess we can trust the BBC to have done some due dilligence and verified that the image does depict Tom Stephens. --SVTCobra 23:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete No source, no keep. It's not justified, it doesn't add significantly, low quality "myspace" pictures do not add to the quality of an article. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete if subject isn't verified (I still think it is not verified enough, but changing vote to neutral. I feel this fits as fair use[IANAL]) We have a moral responsibility to make sure anything we publish is accurate, especially when it involves people. If we can't verify the authenticity of it, it should either have 100 disclaimers and warnings arround it, or it should be gone. I don't wish to comment on whether it is acceptable fair use or not at this moment. Bawolff ☺☻
 * Image is sourced...and there is no legal way we can verify if it is him or not. Their personal information, other than the information they choose to disclose, is not our business and there is no way we can gain access to it. The user submitted a user agreement too MySpace when he signed up: One being all information is true and agree to terms of service. Once he or anyone in the world clicks accept for that contract, then it is out of our hands because they are the one violating the terms of use not us. So if they are lying about who they are, then that's there problem and its up to MySpace to do something as its their contract and their rules. As for fair use, the image is posted on a public viewing site in a profile where the intentions are to publicize yourself or draw intentional attention to yourself. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, low quality or not, this image DOES add to the article as he is the main person/suspect being reported on. It shows who we are talking about. Even BBC News uses his MySpace picture as identifying this person. So low quality or not, it is a vital piece of the article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)