Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22

File:Blackpool Calley.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - while the book is discussed, cover image is not in discussion. Mosmof (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFCI #1 this is cover art. It is being used in the section where critical comentary of the book is being presented.
- But there's no critical commentary of the cover image. Also, passing WP:NFCI doesn't help here. That's only an overview of the kinds of non-free images that are allowed on Wikipedia. All NFC must pass all WP:NFCCs Mosmof (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of WP:NFCI #1. Comentary of the cover art itself is not what's needed, just comentary of the work depicted by the cover art. In this case that's exactly what's provided in the section where the image appears in the article. WP:NFCI is a list of clear examples that should have no trouble passing WP:NFCC. While other things can easily pass WP:NFCC that are not on the list, WP:NFCI provides some obvious, accepted examples, so that these types of pointless debates can be avoided. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:The Seasiders DVD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - DVD is mentioned and the cover image is described in the caption, it does not appear to be critical to understanding article subject. Mosmof (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFCI #1 this is cover art. It is being used in the section where critical comentary of the DVD is being presented. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no critical commentary of the cover image. Also, passing WP:NFCI doesn't help here. That's only an overview of the kinds of non-free images that are allowed on Wikipedia. All NFC must pass all WP:NFCCs Mosmof (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of WP:NFCI #1. Comentary of the cover art itself is not what's needed, just comentary of the work depicted by the cover art. In this case that's exactly what's provided in the section where the image appears in the article. WP:NFCI is a list of clear examples that should have no trouble passing WP:NFCC. While other things can easily pass WP:NFCC that are not on the list, WP:NFCI provides some obvious, accepted examples, so that these types of pointless debates can be avoided. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no critical commentary on the DVD or the cover. Mentioning something is not critical commentary. SkotyWa, you're misunderstanding WP:NFCC#1 and #8. If the information is fully understood by free means, than non-free means are not allowed. It doesn't matter if you think it would be better to have the image. If a non-free image isn't necessary, it isn't used. In this case, free text gets the job done and the image does not significantly improve the readers' understanding. Jay32183 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hurricane, Utah.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally identical to File:HurricaneUtah1929.gif at Commons, but they're different file types, so this can't be speedied under F8. No reason to keep the local image when a virtually identical one is available at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No controversy here. - Darwinek (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you requested deletion, I deleted it under G7. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Vanderburgh High School & Charter School Locations.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, highly pixelated Skier Dude (talk 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, superseded by File:Vanderburgh High School & Charter School Locations - Revised.png. Both files are by the same author, so we don't need to worry about maintaining an attribution history. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason I uploaded the revised version is because I had trouble uploading the updated version. It kept wanting to use the previous version even a week after I uploaded the update. And it stll is, nearly two years later. Just Delete It. Rhatsa26X (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (CDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pittsburgh77.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Awful crop, and won't ever be used. GrapedApe (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pittsburgh78.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Awful crop, and won't ever be used. GrapedApe (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:OldWestinghouse.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw (Conk 9 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some time ago I was planning on nominating this user's contributions, but I never got around to it. This user has gone to the point that we shouldn't assume good faith anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FifthAvePlace.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw (Conk 9 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some time ago I was planning on nominating this user's contributions, but I never got around to it. This user has gone to the point that we shouldn't assume good faith anymore. We also have File:Fifth Avenue Place.jpg, a clearly free image taken from the same angle, and File:Highmark Insurance Headquarters.jpg, a clearly free image taken from a different angle; both are better resolution. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:OneOxford.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw (Conk 9 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some time ago I was planning on nominating this user's contributions, but I never got around to it. This user has gone to the point that we shouldn't assume good faith anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Woodsttstation.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the uploader's talk page — you won't see a notification of this discussion, simply because the user will be blocked until long after it closes. Above the block notice you'll see tons of copyright violation warnings — this user has uploaded so many copyvios that we can't safely trust any of his uploads to be his own works. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uploader's claim to be the author is not credible.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah! This is genuinely suspected of being a copyvio image? Somebody go to Pittsburgh and get a new picture of this station to replace it. ----DanTD (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WhiteRing.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dhmuammuguda.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file used in a now deleted copyright violation. Uploader has a history of uploading files and creating pages with questionable copyright status. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of this user's uploads and issue a final warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Riley Biers.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does add to the reader's understanding enough to become fair use of the file. Editor182 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8, image is not subject of critical commentary, conveys no information that either cannot be replaced by free text or is supported by a discussion supported by a reliable third-party source. --Mosmof (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Boixos.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error in upload, delete Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-controversial deletion request by the uploader. I've changed the tag to speedy deletion db-author. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This discussion was placed using Twinkle and was placed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_22#File:Jim_In_Miami_w-Hat.jpg. Due to concerns by Doc9871 it has been relocated here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested[1] that this report be "re-filed", according to the actual filing date on this board. Duly noted... Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image seems to have had a fairly long history as far as debates go. It as the subject of a deletion discussion in January 2010, the result of which was a "keep". The nomination stated: image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself.. The image is used in the article about The Doors, specifically in the section entitled Miami incident. I found the image because it had been tagged with an "OTRS pending" in January. A search of the system turned up no evidence that anyone had ever submitted an OTRS on this image so it appears the the tag was placed there in hopes the image would not be deleted. In looking a bit deeper I discovered File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg, a free image of the booking photo from the arrest that arose from the Miami concert. The Wikipedia Policy on Non-Free content lays out clear criteria for images. The first criteria is states that Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Based on that, and in reviewing the deletion discussion along with a conversation with Karppien about the mug shot and images found on WIkipedia and Commons it appeared that the free image was not uploaded until after the deletion discussion, I removed the image from the article and placed a CSD F5 on it. (Although perhaps I should have left it in and used CSD F7 instead seeing where we are at now). I have had a very civil conversation with Doc9871 about the image and I am sure s/her will comment on this here as well, but the reason this image is now here is that s/he removed the tags and placed the image back into in the article. From the gist of what s/he says the free mug shot was uploaded either before, or at the same time, as this non-free image buy him/herself and Karppien now has the "Credit" for it after the fact, but it was never discussed during the first [[|IFD The editor also feels the image meets all 10 of the Non-Free content Policy and that s/he had the option of ripping your inappropriate deletion tag before the image is actually deleted. The core issues for me are that this image fails at least two of the criteria in the Non-Free content Policy - Number 1 is No free equivalent and number 8 is Contextual significance. It also touches on Number 2 - Respect for commercial opportunities. Briefly to explain those: The image shows Jim Morrison on stage, in front of a mic, wearing a hat. Based on visual alone the only reason we know it is from the concert is because of text that states it is. In that regard how does this image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding compared to the free mug shot? Based on the Miami incident section that the image is used in does this image offer a "better understanding" that Morrison deliberately exposed his penis while on stage, shouted obscenities to the crowd, simulated oral sex on guitarist Robbie Krieger and was drunk at the time of his performance? To me the image does not show any of that and that is what lead to the arrest warrant, arrest, and trial and, without addition text to explain where the image was taken, it does not really show that the Doors played on March 1, 1969, at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida. The free mug shot may not show the concert but it does show the result when the Dade County Sherrif's office issued a warrant for Morrison's arrest. And as far as Number 2 - Respect for commercial opportunities - this image is not widely available, it came from somebody Flickr account who appears to have scanned images from a book entitled "Illustrated History of the Doors". As there are not a lot of "free" images of the band circa 19070 out there it can be argued that any shot still has a market value - a quick search of Getty images turns up about 6 pages of images. (including File:The Doors band members.jpg, the non-free image that is being used in The Doors infobox as well as the Arts and culture of Los Angeles article. - Getty Photo of Doors...) And just in case it is brought up - in the old discussion the issue of why the image was needed was raised as necessary in order to show the contrast in appearance for ther live concert shots. In looking over images I see Morrison has a beard and a hat - but how does that represent the "Miami incident"? There are other images such as this, this and Live in San Diego that all illustrate a bearded Morrison. So the only "contrast in appearance" may be the hat - however it was not the fact the the Doors played a concert, nor the fact Morrison had a beard or a hat, that makes the Miami concert notable - it was his actions on stage that lead to his arrest. So bringing this full circle - the image may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met however it does not meet all of the criteria found in the Non-Free content Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org back on 31 January and never got any response; I didn't put the OTRS tag on "in hopes the image would not be deleted", and do not appreciate the implication. The e-mail includes my real name and e-mail address, so I'm not going to put it here - I'd be happy to forward it to an administrator, however. The email was sent after contacting a photographer whose image I thought this was, and he confirmed that it was not. His website[2] clearly shows Morrison in the hat; the image here is obviously from the same historic concert, and David LeVine confirmed it. I'm attempting to determine whether or not a claim for copyright still exists for this image (or ever did), so as to avoid another editor (again) using the NFCC#8 excuse in particular to get rid of this image. I tagged the image appropriately and provided fair-use rationale (why do we even have these tags if they are usually ignored in favor of NFCC#1 & #8?) Why did I never hear back from permissions-commons? I don't know, and would like to. Again, I'd be more than happy to provide the e-mail for any administrator interested. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OTRS "implication" is based on two things: Aside from the email not turning up in a search of the OTRS system the "summary" states it was placed there because I don't know what else to do atm to get attention to this image.... As Doc9871 is not the photographer and has said they are unable to get a hold of him the OTRS would not have done much good anyway. As far as the images copyright goes - the image is owned by the photographer of it - Jeff Simon. Copyright always exits automatically to the person who created it, beyond that this particular image has been published which is why it exits here at all under a FUR. A reprint of an article from the September 1970 Rock can be found here and mentions that, about Morrison exposing himself, A photographer named Jeff Simon said he was five feet from the stage the entire time and saw nothing. His 160 photographs likewise revealed no exposure. In the book, Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend by Stephen Davis, page 382, it says of the trial The following day, photographer Jeff Simon, who was five feet away from Jim the entire concert, testified that he didn't see Jim whip it out. More than a hundred of Simons' photos were introduced as evidence. And in the book Break on Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison, Volume 1991, Part 2 on page 393 there is even more mention of Jeff Simon that includes the comment that Morrison, as he was viewing the photos, laughed. "That's where I' supposedly giving head to Robby's guitar." Now if *that* photo were the photo in question I would agree that the image would have "Contextual significance", especially if it did *not* show what the accusation said (i.e- ...simulated oral sex on guitarist Robbie Krieger but images of that moment show otherwise... On the other hand you could also state the same thing with a citation to the book with the quote I just gave), but I would still disagree that this image meets all 10 of the criteria. If anyone feels that, in this case, over 100 images of a Doors concert that lead to Jim Morrisons arrest have no "commercial" value I would ask for them to explain why, more so when there are images from less "notorious" concerts being sold by Getty Images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting, and have made actual steps, to get permission from the copyright holder, as I have already stated. NFCC#1, #2 and #8 were all addressed in the original FFD discussion, and the result was "Keep", despite those arguments. After informing me that he would be taking it back to FFD as a copyright violation without a source, administrator TSBY lives directed me to OTRS (to possibly get it into WP Commons, where all above arguments for deletion would be completely moot) after I discovered who the photograph was credited to, and that David LeVine was in legal negotiations with the publishing company that produced The Illustrated History of The Doors (and thusly Jeff Simon, who was credited erroneously for one of his photos). If Jeff Simon cannot be found to answer in the actual legal negotiations with LeVine ("In the past I have unable to locate Mr. Simon.") and the publisher (who used both of their works without permission - something FAR more commercially damaging to both of them than our NFCC#2) - what are the legal ramifications for WP in keeping this tagged fair-use image? How can the copyright holder be found to ask for permission? Even though Mr. LeVine's copyrighted images from the concert (I'm not interested in other concerts, or images being sold in image banks like Getty) are plastered all over Flickr and Bing, I wouldn't ask him for permission here because it could hurt his commercial opportunities under NFCC#2, especially as he sells his images on his website. This is where the situation was left at back in January. I want to find Mr. Simon to get his permission, but have hit a solid dead end. Soundvisions1, I think both of us should wait for other editors to weigh in before commenting further: the two of us have written a James Michener novel compared to the average thread here, and I think we've touched on everything. I noticed this: you seem quite "excited" about this. It's best to take a deep breath, please. It's better to wind up here or FFD, rather than the image's fate arbitrarily decided by one editor; excellent research, I must point out. I've added Jeff Simon's name to the source for the image, BTW. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response: I think you are getting a bit off topic with a lot of the comments. David Levine is not the copyright holder for the image, even if he were in negotiations with ~~Jim~~(I meant Jeff) Jeff to obtain ownership it would still would not matter at this point because he does yet not own it; and if he did you have already been clear that you would not ask him for free use of image because it would hurt his commercial opportunities, thus failing NFCC#2. Please don't get me wrong, I think it is great that you took initiative to contact the person with whom you first felt took this photo. However, as you brought it up, I find if ironic that the photographer you have spoken with - a photographer who was also at the same show - and that you could have asked permission to use one of his photos, you state that you "wouldn't ask him for permission here because it could hurt his commercial opportunities under NFCC#2, especially as he sells his images on his website." yet you seem to have no problem questioning another photographers images, one that you claim to not be able to contact. What, in your eyes, makes David LeVines work more valuable than Jeff Simons'? Just an honest question. Now, as I have pointed out, the first IFD *never* mentioned a free image was available, and that is one of the key components of this discussion - No free equivalent. Also, as I pointed out too, a part of the keep argument was that this image showed a "contrast in appearance" but yet it is not the only photo to show, for example, Morrison with a beard - and that ties in with the respect for commercial opportunities via the Getty images, which were not shown in the first IFD. Yes, "other stuff exists" is not solely a reason for deletion, but when it is argued that this sole image is the only possible image that illustrates a certain thing than it becomes 100% relevant. And as far as what you claiming that I am quite "excited" about - that is a tag used to place on images either up for discussion: Add the following to the file's caption(s):{{Pufc|1=Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg|log=2010 August 22}}. It has nothing to do with "excitement", it has to do with notification. I could also place a tags on Image use policy talk page and the Non-free content talk page, but that might be seen as canvassing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would appear to be canvassing[3] if you did that. It's time to step off the soapbox, and let others comment. "...even if he were in negotiations with Jim to obtain ownership..". What the hell are you talking about? Jim who? Morrison? You mean Jeff, as in Jeff Simon, right? Your second sentence in the above paragraph makes no sense at all. I'm advising you to relax a bit on this - if you don't that's your choice. Your lengthy posts here are all over the place. BTW, this page clearly states: "Images that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here." Wrong venue?... Doc9871 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response:In the past you have been Civil however now you are slightly turning. The link you provided to try and prove a point is not canvassing, it is a conversation I had about OTRS tagged images, that included this image. The editor, whose talk page that you linked to, deals with a lot of copyvios and I often discuss such issues with them. As they are also part of the OTRS team I have turned to them for advice on that as well. That post, which you feel is canvassing, was made prior to this IFD, and to make sure/check if there had been any OTRS submitted at any time. Next: You made this comment: David LeVine was in legal negotiations with the publishing company that produced The Illustrated History of The Doors (and thusly Jeff Simon, who was credited erroneously for one of his photos) so I said (or meant to say): even if he were in negotiations with ~~Jim~~ (I meant Jeff) Jeff to obtain ownership it would still would not matter at this point because he does yet not own it Just a simple name mistake, and I have corrected it. As for listing this here - I use Twinkle and there is a little check box for a non-free image, when you click on it it places the discussion here, so if this is the wrong venue than the scripts that Twinkle use should be corrected, however scripting for the program is not what I do. Now, what I have been saying prior is not a soapbox at all, but this next part is: I do tend to make lengthy posts, not only here but all over the place, because I do more than just pop in and say "delete" or "keep" and nothing more as many editors do. I am serious about image issues, as well as copyright, and I need to have as much information as I can before claiming items are possible copyvios or fail the Non-Free content Policy. As far as the use of FUR's go I have been extremely vocal about those as well and unlike notability guidelines the Non-Free content Policy is a policy, and I have not been the only person to be involved in discussions about what images should be used here at Wikipedia in regards to non-free images. My primary "work" at Wikipedia is images and copyright on them, obtaining permission is a biggie for me and I have been noticing that the {{otrs pending}} tag is being used to save images from deletion, it was in searching images with that tag that lead me to your image. (And I did ask you directly about it on my talk page but you did not answer it, that is when I went to an administrator with OTRS access to check it out...which you now feel is my attempt at canvassing) If asking for an OTRS check is not acting in good faith in your eyes than every OTRS volunteer who checks the OTRS status of an image is acting in bad faith. I know that is not true at all, but I also know that you are very "close" to this image and we did maintain a civil conversation before it came here. I need to remind you as well what brought this image here - it was not the OTRS tag, it was that File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg, a non-free image, was being used in The Doors article in a section about a concert in Miami. Also in use was File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg, a free image, that illustrates the same section of the article. Thusly I tagged File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg with a CSD for failing Non-free content criteria number 1, No free equivalent. There was zero behind it other than that. We had a discussion about the image, most of which is repeated in this IFD discussion, and on the day it was set to be deleted you replaced the image, removed the CSD tag and told me to take it here if I wanted to. Now we are here and you are welcome, as is anyone, to voice a valid argument for how this image meets all 10 of the criteria in the Non-Free content Policy. I have discussed how this image fails at least 3 of the criteria while you have discussed how another photographer has spoken to you about this image (and their own), how you submitted an OTRS but never heard back, how I am canvassing and making lengthy posts, how I am quite "excited" about this and that these issues were all addressed in the original FFD discussion. Show me where in the original deletion discussion there is any mention of File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg as being a free image that also illustrates this event (Thus causing the image to fail NFCC 1)? And while NFCC 2 is mentioned in the original IFD the only real discussion seems to be the comment given the very poor sourcing, this may be a press image and we fall foul of NFCC#2 and a response, which said, Which commercial opportunities are being taken? The ability of a newspaper print from likely several decades ago to continue to sell? I think it lost that opportunity the day after it came off the press, when the new newspaper came out. However there is no response to that, because at the time there was not an indication of the actual source other than flickr. (Thusly no discussion about Jeff Simon or David LeVine) As those issues were *not* discussed at the time (unless, again, you can show me where in the deletion discussion they are. And the discussion found on the images talk page happened *after* the deletion discussion was closed) I now provide links to Which commercial opportunities are being taken and you replied that you are not interested in other concerts, or images being sold in image banks like Getty. Now it is up to other editors to post why this image either meets or fails all 10 of the criteria. There are no ulterior motives with this at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being quite civil, Soundvisions1: believe me. I know you meant Jeff Simon: why would Mr. LeVine be in negotiations with Mr. Simon to "obtain ownership" of his own photo that was erroneously credited to Simon in one book? He already owned it, and still does. Still not sure where you're getting at with that statement, but you otherwise seem to be repeating the same things over again about NFCC. As far as your "free equivalent" argument: take a look at, oh, say, this diff. Scroll down to the "Morrison Hotel and Absolutely Live" section, and at the bottom right, you'll see a deleted image title "Morrisonmug1.jpg" with a caption (the one I wrote, which now graces the "changeling" mug). Just guess what that image was, and who put it there? I have told you that Karpinnen took the credit for the mug after messing around with it (you said you weren't interested in the mug history, so I haven't bothered showing it to you), and that it was there since November 2009. So it was in the article at the time of the deletion discussion, and before: it's a fact. Why did no one bring it up then? Because apparently no one felt it was actually "equivalent" to the mug like you do, I'm quite sure. All of your arguments truly belong at FFD, because (again) at the top of this page it says, "Images that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here.". This is a "non-free template". I've done some homework here a while ago, and I'll do more. ~~I expect a lengthy post following this, "rehashing" the same arguments: knock yourself out.~~ It's in the wrong venue anyway (Twinkle settings don't excuse where this really belongs... Doc9871 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.