{{shortcut|WP:FUR}}
On Wikipedia we have a considerable number of Fair_use images (see Category:Fair_use_images). Many of these images should not be on Wikipedia. This is because fair use is a specific legal doctrine that requires consideration of several factors:
# the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
# the nature of the copyrighted work;
# the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
# the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Note that since the validity of fair use depends on the use of the image, and since the {{tl|fairuse}} tag is deprecated, there should not be any images in Category:Fair_use_images directly; all should be in an appropriate subcategory (typically via the use of a different template).
Wikipedia frowns on the use of fair use. We are an encyclopedia that wishes to give ''free'' access to our content for everyone, commercial or non-commercial. Fair use should only be used under Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria.
==Policy review==
This Wikipedia page is currently determining ways of reviewing the use of fair use, and whether a fair use claimed image should exist on Wikipedia. Please contribute to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use if you'd like to help.
===Useful tags===
:''(shamelessly copied from WikiProject Fair use)''
*{{tl|fairusereview}} – to mark questionable images for review
*{{tl|fairusedisputed}} – to actively dispute fair use claims
*{{tl|reviewedfairuse}} – to mark images which have been independently reviewed and deemed likely to be fair use
*{{tl|fairusereplace}} – for images which could be reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives.
*{{tl|fairusereduce}} – for large images which should be reduced in size and/or quality.
*{{subst: nsd}} – for images without a source listed
*{{subst: nld}} – for images without a licence listed
==Images==
This section will be to review existing fair use images and to see if they satisfy the Wikipedia fair use criteria.
===8 March 2006===
*Image:IdP.PNG - MSN mappoint screenshot, has aparently been disputed in the past, but then blanked and aparently forgotten about. I put a fairusein tag on it pending a review. It should be fairly easy to make a free alternative, so the fair use claim is not extremely strong. --Sherool (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
*:The outcome of this review will affect several other maps in User:TShilo12/Images. If someone can point me to where free alternatives of these can be made "fairly eas[il]y", please do so ASAP, so I can delete those that may be copyvios and replace them as appropriate. Tomertalk 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*::Doesn't look like fair use to me. It's taking someone's work and using it in a way that, to some extent, competes directly with their use. --Carnildo 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*::*That's [tongue firmly in cheek] nice, but [tongue now unstuck] not especially productive. Try not to turn this into a forum to castigate me tho. In my humble estimation, I turned their shoddy [by comparison, that is] map into something at least remotely useful. That said, your comment sounds like an almost undeniable assumption of bad faith, which, given your station, is especially unbecoming. Also, I find it somewhat disingenuous that you should characterize my use of their source material as having "tak[en] someone's work and using it in a way that, to some extent, competes directly with their use." Not only is the work ''not'' original with Microsoft (they use other sources), but I see no way in which what I did directly ''or indirectly'' competes with their use. Nothing about their map is designed to show distance relationship between SyG and Easter Island, nor to cartographically represent the Chilean province of Isla de Pascua. I guess, what I'm saying is that I don't see anything in your remarks that have any bearing on actual © and fair use issues, which is the relevant subject here. If you're interested in actually learning more about ''why'' this was brought here, please review this. Tomertalk 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*::::If I was assuming bad faith, you'd be seeing terms like "content theft", "deliberate copyvio", and "ban from Wikipedia". The reason I'm saying our use "competes directly with them" is that Microsoft makes money (via banner ads and internal advertising) off of providing maps on MSN Maps. If we provide ''their'' maps on Wikipedia, we're gaining advantage of their work while denying them the income from people who would otherwise have gone to MSN Maps. If we provide a map from some other source, then it's considered fair business competition.
As for other sources for maps, the CIA World Factbook has some, the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection has many, and I've seen copyright tags for a number of free-as-in-freedom online mapping services go by. --Carnildo 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) *:I think we've had this discussion with respect to Google Maps too, and decided against allowing them. I've noticed on commons that some de:(?) people have been making very nice original maps, it would be good to find out what software they're using. Stan 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC) *I have replaced this image with one from the PCL collection. User:Angr 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) ===10 March 2006=== * Image:Red_rain_Kerala.jpg, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_optical_microscope.jpg, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_SEM.png, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_TEM.png, Image:Chung_negative_resistance_setup.png, Image:Chung_negative_resistor.png ** Images from research papers, used to illustrate the subject of the papers. — Omegatron 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) ***As the article discusses the research papers substantially, I think these images are ok (although they really should be tagged with a fair use template). Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC) **** I don't know which template is appropriate. — Omegatron 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC) *****{{tl|fairusein}}? Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC) *Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chef.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Honing_Steel.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chinese_Cleaver.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Cleaver.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Shears.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Carving_Fork.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Mincing.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Tomato.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Santoku.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Soft_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Hard_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Parmesan_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Fluting.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Trimming.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Decorating.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Peeling.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Ham_Slicer.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Fillet.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Boning.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Slicer.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Carving.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Steak.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Utility.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Paring.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Offset_Serrated.jpg. Also Image:Kitchen_knife_anatomy.jpg as an acknowledged derivative of Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chef.jpg. These images are all taken from a single knife manufacturer's website. I believe that these images fail to qualify for fair use because free equivalents could readily be created that would adequately give the same information. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **Not fair use. I'd make replacement images myself, except that I've only got a half-dozen knives in my kitchen. With a million registered accounts, I'm ''sure'' there's at least one person on Wikipedia who both owns a digital camera and has a decent collection of cooking knives. --Carnildo 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **Technically, fair use doesn't require inability to create a replacement, that's more our own policy (which I agree with). If you read the article, it's halfway to sounding like an extended advertisement for Wusthof; I think we can just tag them as fairusereplace, and drop a few from the article so it's not all Wusthof all the time. (Commons has a couple, so we could replace those right now.) Stan 13:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **As the uploader, I feel I should throw in my two cents here. The main reason that I uploaded all Wusthof images is that I wanted there to be a consistency between the features of a knife that do not distinguish its type, so that people would not focus on meaningless differences (such as full tang or bolster) when trying to understand what makes a fillet knife a fillet knife (for example). As for choosing Wusthof, I just wanted knifes with a simple, classic design that people are familiar with (unlike Global's fancy handles and Shun's Damascus steel, for example). I also considered Henckels. I understand that we do not want these to all be fair use Wusthof images, and as such I never intended for these to be the final images. I would definitly support replacing them as long as we can keep these in the meantime, and as long as we can agree on some basic points of consistency (white background, at least?). I have a number of knives I could photograph myself, and I will look through the commons. As for the Kitchen_knife article reading like a Wusthof ad, I take exception (being the author of most of the article). Besides the image captions and one bullet point in the "prominent brands" list, I make not one mention of the brand in the entire article. Is it the captions you are refering to, or am I missing something here? I would be happy to rewrite more NPOV, but I thought I had already done that. I will work on all of this as I get a bit more settled in from my trip (but not tonight). -- Chris 02:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ***I applaud the article; it's great except for the images -- there's no reasonable argument to be made for ''any'' fair-use pictures like these -- and I think the "advertisement" comment was simply referring to the repeated Wusthof mentions in the image captions. The fair-use violation is bad enough here that I'm not sure it's reasonable to keep the images until they are replaced though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** Thank you Bunchofgrapes for your applaud about the article, and thank you FreplySpang for rewriting the first paragraph (I never liked it). I have removed the Wusthof brand name from all of the captions, so I think that is better. I only wrote it in the first place in the interest of the caption having as much information as possible, but it is on the image info page if people really want to know. So I have briefly reviewed WP:FAIR (as I find myself doing so often). It looks as though the images are ok under all 4 legal points and under all 10 Wikipedia policy points except #1 (that being that there are free versions available). I'm not suggesting we violate policy, just that perhaps delaying action for a while (while we find free versions) would be better than removing all of the images. If you look at the article, they really are important. I do not think it is wise to sacrifice the quality and clarity of the article just to follow policy now instead of in a few weeks. -- Chris 08:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ***Sorry to insinuate evil intent in the use of all one brand - I've become jaded, there are all too many articles that are thinly-veiled advertisements. Anyway, the argument that single brand/model emphasizes essential differences is a good one, and worth considering. On the flip side, side-by-side pictures of the same type of knife made by different manufacturers will also work to show the same thing, plus "factor out" points of detail that might be one manufacturer's idiosyncrasies. (Checked out my kitchen BTW, got Henckels for about 1/3 of the types, but need to learn about picturetaking for knives.) Stan 16:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** My husband and I have some good knives & a digital camera - we'll see about taking some pix tomorrow morning. Thanks, everyone, for making this a positive discussion! It is an excellent article, so I'm glad we can clear up this issue with the images. FreplySpang (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** No harm done, Stan. There is a lot of sketchy stuff out there, which is why I just want to make sure people know my intent is good. I think you are right about manufacturer's idiosyncrasies (partially why I chose Wusthof), but I am not sure I am clear. Do you mean that we would have more than one picture for each knife? I really like that idea, but I would worry that they would not fit well on the page. Maybe there could be one larger image and a few thumbnails? Perhaps also saying at the top of the section that viewers should focus on differences in the blade and not the handle, bolster, etc would make things more clear? I agree that this has been a very productive discussion; I think the article will be better for it. Hopefully I can shoot a few knives in the next few days (now I regret not buying that nice chinese cleaver on sale in Shanghai). -- Chris 01:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ** It's been two months without replacement images and the Wusthof images are nicely done. Few people have a complete set of Kitchen knives of the same series in mint condition AND the skills/equipment to make proffesional looking photographs of them, not to mention the time. And even then: If the person just happens to have Wusthof knives... I've sent Wusthof an email recommending them to release the images under a Creative Commons license. It's a win-win situation: free product placement for them, nice images for us. I'll update when/if they respond. It seams like a good solution, untill someone comes with better images. 84.81.35.156, 13.25 19 May 2006 (UTC) ---- *Image:DinaMeyerBirds.jpg - it's only used in one article, which hardly discusses the image's subject (namely the character in the TV show). Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) ===12 March 2006=== *Press_Gang - the gallery contains images which are not fair use in this article. It exceeds the number of fair use images normally allowed in articles. Some of the images are fair use in other articles; some would be orphaned. I've tried removing the gallery, but it was reverted. The JPS 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC) **If someone is looking after the article, have them discuss the characters in the article. That would be fair use. One sentence on the character is '''not''' fair use at all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ===31 March 2006=== *Image:JT-bw-enhcontrast.png Review requested (not by me) from March 3. Image's authorship and the holder of its copyright are apparantly a complete mystery. Jkelly 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) **Tag it with {{tl|nsd}}. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ===10 April 2006=== *Image:TV_The_One_After_Ross_Says_Rachel.jpg requested one which never came through.. it apparently was a picture taken of a TV screen, which should count as GDFL, right? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) **Uh...no. Its main purpose was to take a photo of the events going on in the TV screen, right? The filming of those events is a copyrighted work. It has to be either fair use or a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ***Thanks, the tag had been left their so I'm not bothered. Thanks :) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ===11 April 2006=== *List_of_Dance_Dance_Revolution_characters - I don't think I have much of a choice here except to use fair use images of the characters, but I wanted to consult with you guys just to make sure. I tried really hard to make sure all the copyright statements were taken care of--I read the tutorials and everything. Am I doing it right? Can you help me out? Beat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) * Image:Fire_flowerSMB.png Right, although this is from a game, it was cropped and editted, so the copyright should now be held with the creator of this image. It's like if you go to a gallery and take a picture of a painting, the copyright belongs to you, not the painter. Right? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **Nope. If you had substantial creative input in the resulting work you would have created a derived work where both the original creator and you hold copyrights on the work. You still could not distribute this derived work without the permission of the original copyright holder. In this case, we have cropping and photoshopping out of a background, no sane court would ever rule that the editor has a copyright interest in this work, so only the original copyright holder's copyright matters. Your gallery example is a useful thing to bring up because in the US Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp makes it clear that under US law photographing a painting creates a mere mechanical reproduction. In any case, the copyright holder would never lose their copyright just because you copied their work. :) --Gmaxwell 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ===25 April 2006=== *Image:Pokebarnstar-v2.png I have you this time! I'm not even sure why this is tagged, it's a barnstar with the Pokéball colours, but it's not like a graft or anything. Thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC) ===1 May 2006=== *Image:Berlinale_logo_small.png - I don't doubt that it's fair use to use the logo of the Berlin_Film_Festival in the article on the film festival. But I do doubt that fair use extends to its use in the article on Berlin. I removed it as being non-fair-use, but User:Sashandre has restored it with the reasoning "logo is fair use in all terms/ media - Berlin- related/ noncomercial". Could a neutral third party please look into this? Angr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :*Sashandre seems to be arguing on the basis of some sort of license, one which would be incompatible with Wikipedia's policies anyway. Personally I don't think it matters too much -- as a logo, used to refer directly to the film festival, which is mentioned in the Berlin article, it shouldn't be too much of a danger. --Fastfission 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC) ===23 May 2006=== *Template:UK_supermarkets this template has all of the stores' logos on it, which seems to controvene policy, just wanted to check that there wasnt any special exemption. Ian3055 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC) :I don't think so. The logos have to go, I'm afraid. Angr (t • c) 07:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ===5 June 2006=== *Image:CatStevens_Hurt.jpg. Is the fairuse rationale for use in the Cat_Stevens article valid? It's currently being used as the Biography photo. Some discussion on my talk page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) **No, it is not. An important criterion for fair use is that the usage not be significantly detrimental commercially towards the copyright owner. Another important criterion is that the subject of the image be discussed critically in the context it is used in. (In this case, the subject is that issue of Rolling Stone, not Cat Stevens himself, even if the image is being used to illustrate an article on Stevens.) Your best bet would be to perhaps discuss the importance of making the cover on Rolling Stone for Stevens, or something of the sort, in order to justify the use. Otherwise, our usage of it (to depict Stevens) is too similar to the usage Rolling Stone intended (to depict Stevens) for Wikipedia to be on safe ground, WRT commercial detriment. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ===13 June 2006=== *Template:Lancaster_University has the university's logo on it, image is tagged as fair use, removed it but User:9cds reverted with edit summary ''Return image, use of the swish is permitted within certain T&Cs; (which are met).'' Can any such considerations override policy? Ian3055 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) *:Nope. --Carnildo 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ===14 June 2006=== *Image:Avril_Lavigne_Harpers_1.jpg. I'm not 100% sure about this one, so I'm listing it here. To my eye, the wording of the{{promotional}} tag could be interpreted either way (i.e. would an image from a magazine's website count as ''a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media''?) here. I'd appreciate the input of a more experienced editor on this one. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:That shouldn't be tagged as promotional. It is clearly not a work-for-hire on behalf of Lavigne's agency or from a press kit. It is photography that Harper's is using to promote sales of their magazines or interest in their website. Jkelly 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
===19 June 2006===
*Image:William_Gates,_Sr.jpg as discussed in Wikipedia:Help_Desk#Copyright_issue, this image has only been used to provide a picture of Bill Gates, Sr and this use doesn't appear to fit the fair use requirements for art. Nil Einne 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:No, its use is certainly not compatible with its license. Looks like an I7 speedy deletion criterion to me. User:Angr 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::Speedied. Jkelly 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
===25 June 2006===
*Images Image:Skull_Is_Cleaned.jpg, Image:Sculpt.jpg, Image:Thickness_Markers.jpg, Image:Skin_Texture.jpg, Image:Coloring.jpg and Image:Completed.jpg, these are all screenshots from the moie "Taking_Lives", however they are used in the article on Forensic_facial_reconstruction with no mention of the move. Sure they are used to ilustrate a process that is detailed in the movie, however as I understand we only allow such screenshots to ilustrate the article on the movie itself, to quote Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples of things that would almost scertainly ''not'' be fair use: "''An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses.''". The same logoc seems to apply here, it's a bit like taking a screenshot from NYPD_Blue to ilustrate Police. --Sherool (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:You're quite right; these images' fair use tags have nothing to do with the way they're being used. As such, I'm deleting them under criterion I7. User:Angr 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
*This image Image:Ebayfraudster.jpg is tagged under thw wrong category. And I'm skeptical whether there is a fair use rational for this image. If you're not familiar with the circumstances, try reading Amir_Massoud_Tofangsazan. There is another image there which I have similarly tagged for review. (although at the time I felt it might be useable under fair use but I'm now having doubts). But they key points as I see them are that the copyright status of these images are extremely unclear. There appears to be a common misconception that Amir has denied owning these images. However AFAICT, this isn't true, he denies owning other images which allegedly came from his hard drive but he says that these were his images but stolen from his hacked hotmail account. And even if he had denied ownership, since we don't know for sure who does own them it wouldn't really make any difference.
:In conclusion, since we have no real idea whether these images were publicly released legally and we also have no idea what the copyright status is and who owns the copyright, I don't think these would come under fair use. Over time, things may change and the copyright statys may become clearer but until then I think it should go.
:[Given the circumstances Amir's story may sound far less likely but this is not for us to judge. Note that even if these images originated from the hard drive which came from the laptop (and if it was broken) it's not parcticularly clear how this will effect their legal status.]
:Nil Einne 11:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
===29 June 2006===
* I see that someone marked Image:Thomas_Kuhn_by_Alexander_Bird.gif months ago for fair use review, but there is no indication that the issue was ever resolved. I think our use of it is fair, and have used {{tl|faireusein}} to justify it. I leave it to someone else to review. - Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The uploader has marked Image:Sanfordclocktower.jpg for fair-use review. I don't think it qualifies, but I don't have time to check it out. --Carnildo 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
===03 July 2006===
* Image:LisaFVogue.jpg - I'm having a lengthy (although highly civil and cool minded!) disscussion with D C McJonathan about this case (see here and here), and as I believe we reached a deadlock, I ask for a review here. This image Vogue magazine cover with model Lisa_Fonssagrives on it. I dispute the use of this image in the Supermodel article. The article mentions that Lisa Fonssagrives has been more that 200 times on a Vogue's cover, and the user D C McJonathan believes that this information is not complete without an image of one of those 200+ Vogue covers depicting Miss Fonssagrives. I believe the use of the image is simply decorative. It doesn't add any information to the article, just makes it look prettier. Of course, my explanation of the issue is, by definition, biased on my point of view, so I ask you to read the disscussion on my talk page and on D C McJonathan's talk page to better know both side's arguments. As a side-note, I would like to thank again user D_C_McJonathan for keeping cool through the whole conversation. This is the kind of behaviour we all want to see all Wikipedians to have. ;) --Abu Badali 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::Well here's something for you then. The following is an example of something that is '''not''' Fair Use from the WP:FAIR page.
::''
As for other sources for maps, the CIA World Factbook has some, the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection has many, and I've seen copyright tags for a number of free-as-in-freedom online mapping services go by. --Carnildo 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) *:I think we've had this discussion with respect to Google Maps too, and decided against allowing them. I've noticed on commons that some de:(?) people have been making very nice original maps, it would be good to find out what software they're using. Stan 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC) *I have replaced this image with one from the PCL collection. User:Angr 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) ===10 March 2006=== * Image:Red_rain_Kerala.jpg, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_optical_microscope.jpg, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_SEM.png, Image:Red_rain_Kerala_TEM.png, Image:Chung_negative_resistance_setup.png, Image:Chung_negative_resistor.png ** Images from research papers, used to illustrate the subject of the papers. — Omegatron 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) ***As the article discusses the research papers substantially, I think these images are ok (although they really should be tagged with a fair use template). Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC) **** I don't know which template is appropriate. — Omegatron 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC) *****{{tl|fairusein}}? Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC) *Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chef.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Honing_Steel.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chinese_Cleaver.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Cleaver.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Shears.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Accessory_Carving_Fork.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Mincing.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Tomato.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Santoku.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Soft_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Hard_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Parmesan_Cheese.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Fluting.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Trimming.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Decorating.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Peeling.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Ham_Slicer.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Fillet.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Boning.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Slicer.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Carving.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Steak.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Utility.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Paring.jpg, Image:Kitchen_Knife_Offset_Serrated.jpg. Also Image:Kitchen_knife_anatomy.jpg as an acknowledged derivative of Image:Kitchen_Knife_Chef.jpg. These images are all taken from a single knife manufacturer's website. I believe that these images fail to qualify for fair use because free equivalents could readily be created that would adequately give the same information. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **Not fair use. I'd make replacement images myself, except that I've only got a half-dozen knives in my kitchen. With a million registered accounts, I'm ''sure'' there's at least one person on Wikipedia who both owns a digital camera and has a decent collection of cooking knives. --Carnildo 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **Technically, fair use doesn't require inability to create a replacement, that's more our own policy (which I agree with). If you read the article, it's halfway to sounding like an extended advertisement for Wusthof; I think we can just tag them as fairusereplace, and drop a few from the article so it's not all Wusthof all the time. (Commons has a couple, so we could replace those right now.) Stan 13:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) **As the uploader, I feel I should throw in my two cents here. The main reason that I uploaded all Wusthof images is that I wanted there to be a consistency between the features of a knife that do not distinguish its type, so that people would not focus on meaningless differences (such as full tang or bolster) when trying to understand what makes a fillet knife a fillet knife (for example). As for choosing Wusthof, I just wanted knifes with a simple, classic design that people are familiar with (unlike Global's fancy handles and Shun's Damascus steel, for example). I also considered Henckels. I understand that we do not want these to all be fair use Wusthof images, and as such I never intended for these to be the final images. I would definitly support replacing them as long as we can keep these in the meantime, and as long as we can agree on some basic points of consistency (white background, at least?). I have a number of knives I could photograph myself, and I will look through the commons. As for the Kitchen_knife article reading like a Wusthof ad, I take exception (being the author of most of the article). Besides the image captions and one bullet point in the "prominent brands" list, I make not one mention of the brand in the entire article. Is it the captions you are refering to, or am I missing something here? I would be happy to rewrite more NPOV, but I thought I had already done that. I will work on all of this as I get a bit more settled in from my trip (but not tonight). -- Chris 02:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ***I applaud the article; it's great except for the images -- there's no reasonable argument to be made for ''any'' fair-use pictures like these -- and I think the "advertisement" comment was simply referring to the repeated Wusthof mentions in the image captions. The fair-use violation is bad enough here that I'm not sure it's reasonable to keep the images until they are replaced though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** Thank you Bunchofgrapes for your applaud about the article, and thank you FreplySpang for rewriting the first paragraph (I never liked it). I have removed the Wusthof brand name from all of the captions, so I think that is better. I only wrote it in the first place in the interest of the caption having as much information as possible, but it is on the image info page if people really want to know. So I have briefly reviewed WP:FAIR (as I find myself doing so often). It looks as though the images are ok under all 4 legal points and under all 10 Wikipedia policy points except #1 (that being that there are free versions available). I'm not suggesting we violate policy, just that perhaps delaying action for a while (while we find free versions) would be better than removing all of the images. If you look at the article, they really are important. I do not think it is wise to sacrifice the quality and clarity of the article just to follow policy now instead of in a few weeks. -- Chris 08:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ***Sorry to insinuate evil intent in the use of all one brand - I've become jaded, there are all too many articles that are thinly-veiled advertisements. Anyway, the argument that single brand/model emphasizes essential differences is a good one, and worth considering. On the flip side, side-by-side pictures of the same type of knife made by different manufacturers will also work to show the same thing, plus "factor out" points of detail that might be one manufacturer's idiosyncrasies. (Checked out my kitchen BTW, got Henckels for about 1/3 of the types, but need to learn about picturetaking for knives.) Stan 16:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** My husband and I have some good knives & a digital camera - we'll see about taking some pix tomorrow morning. Thanks, everyone, for making this a positive discussion! It is an excellent article, so I'm glad we can clear up this issue with the images. FreplySpang (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ** No harm done, Stan. There is a lot of sketchy stuff out there, which is why I just want to make sure people know my intent is good. I think you are right about manufacturer's idiosyncrasies (partially why I chose Wusthof), but I am not sure I am clear. Do you mean that we would have more than one picture for each knife? I really like that idea, but I would worry that they would not fit well on the page. Maybe there could be one larger image and a few thumbnails? Perhaps also saying at the top of the section that viewers should focus on differences in the blade and not the handle, bolster, etc would make things more clear? I agree that this has been a very productive discussion; I think the article will be better for it. Hopefully I can shoot a few knives in the next few days (now I regret not buying that nice chinese cleaver on sale in Shanghai). -- Chris 01:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ** It's been two months without replacement images and the Wusthof images are nicely done. Few people have a complete set of Kitchen knives of the same series in mint condition AND the skills/equipment to make proffesional looking photographs of them, not to mention the time. And even then: If the person just happens to have Wusthof knives... I've sent Wusthof an email recommending them to release the images under a Creative Commons license. It's a win-win situation: free product placement for them, nice images for us. I'll update when/if they respond. It seams like a good solution, untill someone comes with better images. 84.81.35.156, 13.25 19 May 2006 (UTC) ---- *Image:DinaMeyerBirds.jpg - it's only used in one article, which hardly discusses the image's subject (namely the character in the TV show). Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) ===12 March 2006=== *Press_Gang - the gallery contains images which are not fair use in this article. It exceeds the number of fair use images normally allowed in articles. Some of the images are fair use in other articles; some would be orphaned. I've tried removing the gallery, but it was reverted. The JPS 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC) **If someone is looking after the article, have them discuss the characters in the article. That would be fair use. One sentence on the character is '''not''' fair use at all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ===31 March 2006=== *Image:JT-bw-enhcontrast.png Review requested (not by me) from March 3. Image's authorship and the holder of its copyright are apparantly a complete mystery. Jkelly 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) **Tag it with {{tl|nsd}}. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ===10 April 2006=== *Image:TV_The_One_After_Ross_Says_Rachel.jpg requested one which never came through.. it apparently was a picture taken of a TV screen, which should count as GDFL, right? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) **Uh...no. Its main purpose was to take a photo of the events going on in the TV screen, right? The filming of those events is a copyrighted work. It has to be either fair use or a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ***Thanks, the tag had been left their so I'm not bothered. Thanks :) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ===11 April 2006=== *List_of_Dance_Dance_Revolution_characters - I don't think I have much of a choice here except to use fair use images of the characters, but I wanted to consult with you guys just to make sure. I tried really hard to make sure all the copyright statements were taken care of--I read the tutorials and everything. Am I doing it right? Can you help me out? Beat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) * Image:Fire_flowerSMB.png Right, although this is from a game, it was cropped and editted, so the copyright should now be held with the creator of this image. It's like if you go to a gallery and take a picture of a painting, the copyright belongs to you, not the painter. Right? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **Nope. If you had substantial creative input in the resulting work you would have created a derived work where both the original creator and you hold copyrights on the work. You still could not distribute this derived work without the permission of the original copyright holder. In this case, we have cropping and photoshopping out of a background, no sane court would ever rule that the editor has a copyright interest in this work, so only the original copyright holder's copyright matters. Your gallery example is a useful thing to bring up because in the US Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp makes it clear that under US law photographing a painting creates a mere mechanical reproduction. In any case, the copyright holder would never lose their copyright just because you copied their work. :) --Gmaxwell 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ===25 April 2006=== *Image:Pokebarnstar-v2.png I have you this time! I'm not even sure why this is tagged, it's a barnstar with the Pokéball colours, but it's not like a graft or anything. Thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC) ===1 May 2006=== *Image:Berlinale_logo_small.png - I don't doubt that it's fair use to use the logo of the Berlin_Film_Festival in the article on the film festival. But I do doubt that fair use extends to its use in the article on Berlin. I removed it as being non-fair-use, but User:Sashandre has restored it with the reasoning "logo is fair use in all terms/ media - Berlin- related/ noncomercial". Could a neutral third party please look into this? Angr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :*Sashandre seems to be arguing on the basis of some sort of license, one which would be incompatible with Wikipedia's policies anyway. Personally I don't think it matters too much -- as a logo, used to refer directly to the film festival, which is mentioned in the Berlin article, it shouldn't be too much of a danger. --Fastfission 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC) ===23 May 2006=== *Template:UK_supermarkets this template has all of the stores' logos on it, which seems to controvene policy, just wanted to check that there wasnt any special exemption. Ian3055 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC) :I don't think so. The logos have to go, I'm afraid. Angr (t • c) 07:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ===5 June 2006=== *Image:CatStevens_Hurt.jpg. Is the fairuse rationale for use in the Cat_Stevens article valid? It's currently being used as the Biography photo. Some discussion on my talk page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) **No, it is not. An important criterion for fair use is that the usage not be significantly detrimental commercially towards the copyright owner. Another important criterion is that the subject of the image be discussed critically in the context it is used in. (In this case, the subject is that issue of Rolling Stone, not Cat Stevens himself, even if the image is being used to illustrate an article on Stevens.) Your best bet would be to perhaps discuss the importance of making the cover on Rolling Stone for Stevens, or something of the sort, in order to justify the use. Otherwise, our usage of it (to depict Stevens) is too similar to the usage Rolling Stone intended (to depict Stevens) for Wikipedia to be on safe ground, WRT commercial detriment. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ===13 June 2006=== *Template:Lancaster_University has the university's logo on it, image is tagged as fair use, removed it but User:9cds reverted with edit summary ''Return image, use of the swish is permitted within certain T&Cs; (which are met).'' Can any such considerations override policy? Ian3055 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) *:Nope. --Carnildo 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ===14 June 2006=== *Image:Avril_Lavigne_Harpers_1.jpg. I'm not 100% sure about this one, so I'm listing it here. To my eye, the wording of the
An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply.'' ::I believe that the image is being used to illustrate the person, and therefore should be removed. Arguments about whether the image is simply decorative or actually serves a purpose are irrelevant if the fair use image isn't even fair use in the article in either case. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::I have read, and I believe understand the restriction to 'illustrate the article of the person' but in this case there is a strong relationship between the magazine (Vogue), the model (Lisa Fonssagrives) who appeared on over 200 Vogue covers, and the establishment of the term supermodels. The relationship is notable enough to be a topic in all three articles and I have so discussed it, and as such it seems to me that a Vogue cover with Lisa Fonssagrives is representative of this relationship in a way that no other photograph could be as it would not be a Vogue cover. Would that not be fair use? Doc 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::The point is that we do not need an image to say that Lisa and Vogue are closely related. You have just explained it here cleary withouth any help of an image, and I believe that anyone who reads your paraghaph is going to understand that Lisa and Vogue are closely related. Why do you think the image is necessary in the article? The image use is decorative. --Abu Badali 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::::I disagree and hope that we can get other input here. The example above states that if the issue is notable enough to be a topic within the article, it is acceptable. This issue is discussed within the article. Doc 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::::::The "''discussion''" of the specific issue was added later to further justify the user of this image in the article. At the begginning, you were claimming that any other Vogue cover could be used interchangeably. I believe that changging some article's contents to fit an random unfree image use hurts Wikipedia. The effort to build a free encyclopedia encompass the burdenning task of finding or creating freely available images. We should not flee from this. --Abu Badali 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :::::::I still do believe that any of her over 200 covers of Vogue could represent and help convey the relationship, however as I thought about it more, I realized that there is a unique aspect of this cover that was legitimate with regard to her universal appeal. I have added that as I feel that improves both the Wikipedia articles and the understanding of this relationship. To be honest that particular aspect of this cover had not struck me before. Doc 02:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ::::::::That's incredibly convenient. --Abu Badali 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) :::::::::That is your POV, but truly I thank you for drawing my attention to the specific cover at hand, because it is a perfect example of the appeal and the synergy between Lisa and Vogue for creating the supermodel. I do hope that we can get some impartial input to clear up this issue of fair use. Doc 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ===07 July 2006=== * Image:Cafe_Alpha_logo.png - Hi, I'm the uploader. This is a heavily edited version of a non-free image. Some more details are at the image page and User_talk:163.139.215.193#Cafe_Alpha_logo. Would this count as fair use? --'''Kjoon'''lee 06:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ===09 July 2006=== * Image:Cthulhurising.png. Book cover of 1984's The Dunwich Horror and Others by H. P. Lovecraft. This is an artwork gracing the cover of a reprinting of earlier work. I'm not sure if the artwork is old or new. I don't think it meets fair-use criteria for use in The_Dunwich_Horror, nor do I think it could meet fair-use criteria for anything except perhaps a discussion of the artist, Raymond Bayless. But I'm not positive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC) * Image:Digg_Problem_Report.png. Small segment of a screenshot from the digg web site, though the full image is only accessible to a person who is logged in to the web site (which is free[as in beer] to sign up to). Given that the conversation that it is used around is discussing the mechanism highlighted within this image, it appears to be free use given the context (specifically, it is used “for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question,” as stated in the notice of copyrighted image blurb for software that runs over the web). —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ===14 July 2006=== *Image:Assumptionnepal.jpg. Someone has claimed that the fair use rationale of this article is inappropriate; having downloaded it myself, I think it is, but it is best if in doubt to review it and see if it is appropriate as fair use. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC) **I don't think the fair-use rationale is very strong. A picture of a Catholic church in Nepal doesn't actually tell us very much about Roman_Catholicism_in_Nepal. Granted, there probably aren't as many Wikipedians per capita in Nepal as in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, but still it should be possible for someone to take a picture of the church and upload it under a free license to Commons. User:Angr 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ***Took it down until I can contact the owner and ask about free using it. Judgesurreal777 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ===19 July 2006=== *Big_Brother_(Australia_series_6) has a total of about 31 images each claimed to be 'fair use' (tagged as screenshots). I think taken together they may not be fair use. I notice a bunch of images were just removed from Desperate_Housewives under similar circumstances. Is fair use justified? -- Barrylb 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :It's dodgy, and the BB UK7 one is the similar. Each is being used against the subject it depicts, but the quantity is problematic. The JPS'''talk to me''' 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) ===25 July 2006=== Guys. I would appreciate an opinion on Image:ZBWE1.jpg regarding its copyright/Fair Use status. I am considering inserting it as the lead image in Whites_in_Zimbabwe. The image appeared on the cover of the Sunday Times (London) colour supplement on 25 March 1984. The copyrightholder is a well known photojournalist and I would give her a credit. See earlier comment by TheGrappler on my talk page. Bob BScar23625 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) ps : This is proving to be a tricky one. The photographer is Mary Ellen Mark - a famous photojournalist. The library that manages her work (the Falklands library, New York) has been approached and has replied. The librarian, Meredith Lue (mlue@falkland.com), has never heard of Wikipedia. Bob BScar23625 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) ===26 July 2006=== And speaking of the Devil ;-) I came across Image:Ted_Williams_Time_Cover_1950.jpg - yes, it's a ''Time'' cover, and it's being used in a biographical infobox, and no, the "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph" is obviously incorrect. Since I'm in two minds about taking this to IFD or just changing the tag to a more appropriate one, I'm bringing it here. I know that in all fair use claims there ''should'' be a full rationale stated and I really dont' feel comfortable with providing one for this image, whichever tag is used. Now, I know what User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu would do... but I'd just like some slightly broader feedback before running off to WP:IFD! TheGrappler 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) :There's no doubt the tag shoud be changed to {{tl|Magazine cover}} because... it is a magazine cover. And regardless of the tag used, the image should be removed from Ted_Williams because the article, as of the current version, do not even mentions the image. There is a chance that some editor will change the article, adding information about ''how important and historic this image is'' (see the ''03 July 2006'' discussion above), but it won't be hard to show that this ''information'' was created to justify the image presence. --Abu Badali 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) ===4 August 2006=== Image:Raising_of_the_flag_-_colored.jpg - is a derivative work of an iconic photograph - do we allow derivatives of fairuse images ? The purpose of the image is to comment and inform on the original work (and not replace it) - so it's within the bounds of fairuse - I'm just not sure that changing a piece, and still claiming fair use is acceptable. I can produce an acceptable replacement by sketching the figures in outline and numbering them. What do people think ? Megapixie 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC) :The sketch-and-number would still be a derivative work, although it would contain a lot less of the original work, and maybe it could help the fair use claim. This image is surely on the border line, but once I have seen it being used as an example of "''fair-use best pratices''", or "''what fair use was intended to be on Wikipedia''". --Abu Badali 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC) :Considering that there's an entire article devoted to discussing the original photograph, and the derivative helps greatly in understanding the original -- I'd never have spotted the sixth person without it -- it's well within the bounds of fair use. --Carnildo 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ===5 August 2006=== Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg This is from the Randall_Flagg article. It shows a key point in the character's arc; namely, his death. Later, a disgruntled fan who ignored the spoiler warnings and saw the picture before reading the book wanted it removed and put it up for deletion. (Up until this point, there had been no problems with the image) No consensus was reached. Later, an administrator deleted it because he felt it was against WP:FUC#8: ''The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.'', saying that Flagg's death is described in the article enough and that it serves no purpose in the article. I'd like to keep the picture in the article, as I believe that it is important to Flagg's character and the page in general as a visual aid to that particular section.--CyberGhostface 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) :Let's examine this image under the lense of U.S fair use law. Factor #2 is ''"the nature of the copyrighted work"''. This image comes from a recent (2004) book that is still on the market. Factor #4 is ''"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"''. Full color illustrations are available in the hardcover edition, not in cheaper paperback editions. In other words, paperback users can now get features of the hardcover for free off of Wikipedia. These two considerations are encapsulated very clearly in criterion #2 of official Wikipedia policy: ''"The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product."'' Now let's examine illustrator Michael Whelan's webpage. His FAQ states: :''We receive numerous requests from fans every day asking to use Michael's images on their web pages. Unfortunately, Michael does not authorize free use of his images on either commercial or non-commercial web-sites. If you send a simple request as such, you will receive a form letter response politely declining your request.'':He lists several reasons why this is. Among them: :''As an illustrator, Michael makes his living by selling rights to reproduce his artwork, not only selling to primary but also reselling to secondary markets. If all of Michael's fans decided to post his artwork across the internet, it would dilute Michael's copyrights and make his work less marketable.'':''[Ex. Why would a publisher pay to use artwork that has already been used by thousands]. One site, of course, doesn't jeopardize Michael's copyrights in itself. One site violating copyright is, however, a rubber stamp for anyone who sees that site to do the same. Such is the nature of a mass medium like the internet.'':Which essentially says what I have written above in different words. It's clear that including this image on Wikipedia is copyright infringement. The same goes for other Michael Whelan images. Punctured Bicycle 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) ::That seems more to apply to his own art that he sells on his website. And he doesn't specifically own the art published in the Dark Tower series; that's copyrighted by Stephen King along with the rest of the Dark Tower series. --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::The rationale seems pretty thin. The article is not about the image itself, the image could be replaced by a GFDL drawing by someone else, and the image doesn't add greatly to our understanding of the character. It's a nice picture - but we can't use it. Simple as that. Megapixie 09:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC) :::It illustrates a key event in the character's history (namely, his death). --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) {{spoilerabout|the Dark Tower series}} :::I have sent an e-mail to Michael Whelan as I think using pictures for an educational purpose is different. If he says no I will remove it. :::Also, I recommend that you look at the Randall Flagg discussion page and see Punctured Bicycle's posts. The whole thing is just a sour grapes response because he got himself spoiled and nothing more complex than that. Obviously we shouldn't just post pictures willy nilly but if it represents an important part of the story then I think it should stay. For example, if we were to make an Eddie Dean article I wouldn't show every single picture of him but I would show one of him getting killed as its representative of his character.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::::My objections to this image on the grounds that it reveals a major spoiler still stands. When you couple its spoiling nature with the fact that it is not essential to a free encyclopedia, having more decorative value than educational value (as I, Megapixie, and howcheng believe), it is clear that it should be deleted. However, the more serious problems with this image outlined above obviously trump all that. Please do look at my posts. You may also be interested in the history of the Randall_Flagg article, where CyberGhostface labels my original removal of the image as vandalism, despite the fact that I brought the issue up on the talk page beforehand. Also see my talk page, where CyberGhostface calls me a "schlum" and has a generally uncivil tone towards me. Also view the history of the original image, Image:Flaggdeathx.jpg, where CyberGhostface reverts the image deletion template four times (a 3RR violation) despite the template specifically saying not to. Finally, you can see CyberGhostface misconstruing the story at User_talk:howcheng: "The only reason why it was up for deletion was because someone foolishly ignored the spoiler warning and wanted to delete it because it spoiled something for him." Remember how I had to tell you to put spoiler templates up, because they weren't there? Punctured Bicycle 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :::::I did not call you a "schlum". I was speaking in general terms. Maybe you fit that description because you foolishly browsed down an article describing a character and were shocked to discover his death was written, but there were no specific people in mind when I used that word. Furthermore, everyone else on the Randall Flagg discussion page all agreed that the image should stay yet PB wanted to remove without agreements from others for his own selfish reasons.--CyberGhostface 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) *'''Speedied''' as reupload of content previously deleted through Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. Please don't repost content removed through our deletion procedures. Jkelly 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::Howcheng told me herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CyberGhostface#Flagg_image to reupload it for discussion. Later today I will upload it again until this is settled, preferably when Whelan responds to my request.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :::I reuploaded it under a different name. I will remove it if Michael Whelan tells me not to but I would prefer it to stay up until I get a response.--CyberGhostface 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)