Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

File:Hartford Dreams.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's a photo of a screen, it's also possibly a little out of focus. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally took this photo myself at her concert, that's why it looks somewhat blurry. It was the best shot I had of her performing the song, that's why I uploaded it. Please do not remove it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerts generally are copyrighted. This is why you can't take photos/videos during the concert. Just because it's live doesn't make it any different then watching the concert on video and trying to post a snapshot of the video. Caffeyw (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't want to delve too deeply into the copyright issues, which are actually fairly complicated (contrary to Caffeyw's suggestion). A concert is not fixed in a tangible medium and we don't know whether the screen's video output was recorded simultaneously with its transmission to the public, which would qualify as fixation. However, even if neither was fixed, there are still possible criminal issues involved with the distribution (although I do not know the WMF's position on whether the URAA is to be considered in determining whether files are free or not). Simply put, though, the image is too blurry to be useful. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:13, 20 September 2013 (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:Ex-Lady. film poster.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair-use (multiple lobby cards, including File:Poster - Ex-Lady 07.jpg) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster - Ex-Lady 07.jpg is also a copyrighted work. The copy right belongs to Warner Bros. and it has been loaded in Wikimedia commons under false pretenses. Lobby cards are copyrighted works as film posters are. While Lobby cards shows scenes from a movie, they are nor a replacement for a poster which conveys what the movie is about.File:Ex-Lady. film poster.jpg should not be deleted. --Miguelemejia (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyrighted work how? Where's the copyright notice (required under US law at the time)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2013 (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:Kids skinny dipping in India.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child pornography-questionable One Of Seven Billion (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2013 (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:Forheavenssake3.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File does not meet NFCC #8 (contextual significance) in its current usage. DI tag removed by uploader, who has claimed significance is in the depiction of the main characters (again disputable, as the actors as themselves remain recognisable). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2013 (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.