Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 16

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:

Image:ElviraWCGV08111984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

• This image was grabbed from a website I own without permission from either myself or the station in question (WCGV-TV is in Milwaukee, not Minneapolis). It is used on my site with permission. Its clean-up was done by me. Nitelinger 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution to Vote taker: Note that Nitelinger writes "Delete" as the header multiple times. Don't be fooled into thinking these represent multiple users.Kww 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: These are not valid reasons for challenging the image's fair use on Wikipedia. Since its upload, the image has been properly sourced on its page and the copyright holder has been clearly indicated. Though, as Nitelinger points out, the location of the station was misidentified on the image page, the station name was bluelinked to its Wikiarticle, giving the proper location; the proper location, again, has always been given in midnight movies, where the image appears. The appropriate correction has been made to the image page. In addition, the summary there has now been refined and Dick Nitelinger's name added to the source description. The image plays a significant informative role within the context of the article, one that could not be served by a simple image of Elvira or a lesser midnight movie host. The contextualization of her persona within a local TV station's newspaper ad is what makes the image significantly informative within the context of our midnight movies article and irreplaceable by text alone or a free image.—DCGeist 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not for Nitelinger's reasons. Rather, because it does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding the article Midnight movie in a way text cannot, as required by WP:NFCC#8. —Angr 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What is the text you propose that would capture all the information conveyed by the image? I'd like to read it. Here are some of the ways the image increases readers' understanding of the subject matter:

1. It illustrates exactly what Elvira, the best-known midnight movie host, looks like
2. It illustrates how the station focused its promotion of the Movie Macabre package far more on the host's erotic style than on the movies themeselves
3. It gives us the rather suprising information that a station would use a sexual double entendre as an ad lead line in this context--and in a virtually identical font to its own tagline
4. It gives us the text of the ad, showing how the films in the package were characterized
5. It facilitates discussion of how a specific station programmed genre films, often double-billing a syndicated package followed by a "true" midnight airing--hard to see how to get into such an example without the image

I had no idea all of that could be conveyed via encyclopedically appropriate text alone. You must have worked hard on what you've written. Please share it.—DCGeist 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Elvira looks like is irrelevant for the article Midnight movie. The rest can be stated in the words you just wrote above. —Angr 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the best-known midnight movie host looks like is highly relevant to the article on Midnight movies. And the rest can not be stated in the the words I wrote above, because they are descriptions of an image that lose much of their rationale if the image is nowhere to be found. These concepts are important to an understanding of the subject matter, but they require the exemplary illustration as the basis for their proper encylopedic expression. Again, if you disagree, show us a version of the relevant section of the article in which all of these concepts are conveyed exclusively via text in an encyclopedically appropriate way. If you can do that, I'll reverse my position here.—DCGeist 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, even if she were the "best-known midnight movie host" (which I doubt considering she's a parody of another one), her appearance is only relevant to her own article, not to the article about the genre she represents. And actually, I take back what I said about your words being adequate; in fact, nothing you wrote above is relevant to an article about the genre of Midnight movies. We don't seem to have an article about the character "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" per se (just an article on Cassandra Peterson, and the film called Elvira, Mistress of the Dark); if we did, you might be able to get away with using this image there if there was a section discussing how the Elvira character was promoted by the TV station. But for this article, it just doesn't have enough significance. (And neither do any of the other fair-use images in the article at the moment.) —Angr 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, midnight movies do not constitute a "genre"--the term describes two different, but related, exhibition practices--one televisual, one cinematic. Second, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that all the information this illustration conveys about the midnight movie television exhibition practice is somehow irrelevant to a discussion of the midnight movie television exhibition practice. Forgive me if I say that seems like a very bizarre position to hold.—DCGeist 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Angr has yet another reason. The whole issue of fair usage here is a sham and should be reviewed.Copyright holders and owners of materials don't know if their materials are being used, and can't object unless they stumble upon them. In addition, this process is a peer review and NOT a legal one. Nitelinger 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am cited and that the station is named is completely irrelevant. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. Nitelinger 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree the image needs to be deleted, you have to understand that Wikipedia never uses images by permission. Preferably, we use images that are freely licensed; where that isn't possible, we appeal to fair use, which means "the way we're using it, we don't need permission." And since you're not the copyright holder of this image anyway, you're not in a position to be complaining that we didn't ask your permission. —Angr 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response [conceptually overlaps with Angr's response above]: As I have attempted to explain repeatedly to you, Nitelinger, (a) fair use is not a permission-based process and (b) your involvement with the image does not give you any particular rights to its use at all. In this instance, the image is being used for nonprofit educational purposes and the effect of its use upon the potential market for or value of the work is practically nil (see Fair use#Fair use under United States law). A specific case has been made for its contribution to readers' understanding of the topic. Here at Wikipedia, the only sort of "permissions" we can deal with are ones that entirely release the image under a free license. For all non-free images, the applicable procedure is legal fair use, not copyright holder-controlled/permission use.—DCGeist 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I am troubled by the modifications done by Nitelinger. My belief is that if the modifications are substantial, then our fair use claim in this context is weak. If the modifications are trivial (upped the contrast and brightness in Photoshop, for example), then we can legitimately claim fair use (which I think is fairly strong in the Elvira article, and not so strong in the Midnight Movie one). Kww 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nitelinger's characterization above of his work on the image as "clean-up" (he used the same phrase in correspondence with me) does not suggest any modification of its substantive and relevant content. There is also nothing in the manifest appearance of the image to suggest that its fundamental elements have been altered in any way from the original printed newspaper ad. Nitelinger's reported work on the image should thus not affect the fair use claim.—DCGeist 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was in less than perfect shape as it came from a copy from TV Guide. The text was "muddy" and had to be cleaned-up down to the 2-3 pixel level. In addition, some of the elements (notably her forearm) had to be reconstructed as the image quality was low.

Now that you know where it came from, why don't you go to your local library, get a copy for yourself, and upload your own, rather than grabbing one from my site? You'll have me out of your hair -- although to cover things, I will bring the topic up at my next meeting at the station.

Also, Wikipedia is not a print medium. It is interactive and online. Since the image exists online on my site, a simple link to it should suffice. Come to think of it, that might just apply to many images here.

Of course, I don't understand how a TV show that ran at 9:00 p.m. qualifies as an example of a "Midnight Movie". Then again, I don't think the page on that topic is substantial enough to warrant inclusion here, but I'll let someone else devote time and energy to that. Someone has already taken up way more of mine than some simple courtesies (to me and the station/corporate parent) would have -- and turned me off to sharing my knowledge here. Nitelinger 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we have tried over and over again to explain, the "courtesies" you demand--permissions for use--are not applicable to the Wikipedia process. The courtesies I extended to you in our correspondence--the time and energy I spent in attempting to familiarize you with fair use law and policy and the collaborative offer I made ("we can work on drafting satisfactory credits for the image page")--you chose to ignore. If anyone here is responsible for "turning you off," it is simply you.—DCGeist 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are responsible. For whatever reason you choose to hide behind the fair use law. Whether it applies here or not is a matter for a court to decide and not you. ("we can work on drafting satisfactory credits for the image page") You fail to understand that this is not a question of a satisfactory credit. If it was, that could be worked out. Whether the copyright law allows the use of the image under "fair use" or not, asking for permission is a courtesy, and one that I extend to all whose images, audio and other materials I post on my site. Rather than doing that, you choose to prefer to tell me that you don't have to ask permission under fair use, and then offer to "educate" me. If you had told me that you don't believe that you have to, but will anyway as a courtesy, I would've happily provided you with a contact at the station who you could've extended the same courtesy to, "smoothed" the way by making the introduction, and settled the matter. Instead, you've lost a potential colleague and my goodwill. I can't speak for the station or their corporate parent, but I've built-up a good relationship with them over many years. I could've hidden behind 'fair use', on my site, but chose not to for that reason. You also choose not to get the image yourself.

Kww you have my argument re: the image being available online at my site, and that a simple link would be preferable. I think that might apply to many images here, as there is no need to have them on individual pages, where the images already exist online. Nitelinger 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: For the last time and only because you really do need to understand this, I did not "choose to hide behind the fair use law." Here at Wikipedia, images may appear under one of only two primary legal regimes: fair use and free use. It's not a question of my personal refusal to extend the "courtesy" you insist on. Images simply may not appear here under "permitted use." It's regrettable that you don't like that fact and want to blame others for your unhappiness with it.—DCGeist 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Just so I understand: You are saying that you did not extend the courtesy of asking because under "fair use" you don't have to, correct? Nitelinger 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: In: WP:NFC under Applied to Wikipedia it states: "Also, consider asking the copyright holder to release the work under an appropriate GFDL license. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a sample form letter." That contradicts your assertion that you can't ask for permission to use an image, as only free or fair use images can be used. You are encouraged to ask for permission to release the material under a GFDL license. (A limited license is a different matter.) I don't know what either my response or that of the station/corporate parent would have been, but you could've asked us to release it as a "free' image — which would've been a courtesy. Nitelinger 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, under item 8 (Significance): As per Angr the omission is simply not detrimental to a reader's understanding of either a "Midnight Movie", or Cassandra Peterson. Appropriate text can be substituted in either. An appropriate link already exists to Elvira's website, and if necessary, one can link to to the page on my site where the particular image appears. Nitelinger 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm...and why, pray tell, did you go through all that work to have it appear on your website? I mean, since it's not informative in the least.—DCGeist 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Oh...because it relates to Milwaukee, which is what my site has to do with. You can simply link to it there, rather than uploading it here. This is an interactive medium, after all. As I inquired earlier, why don't you just get your own copy, clean it up, and post it, rather than grabbing mine? Nitelinger 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Angr. -- RG² 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per fair use in both articles. --Knulclunk 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDelete Fair use in Cassandra Peterson. I'm not convinced by the arguments for Midnight Movie, but it only takes one article to keep an image.Kww 11:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suitable free replacement has been found for Cassandra Peterson, and I was never much enamored of the Midnight Movie usage.Kww 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kww.--Esprit15d 13:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete,Further, Criteria 1 for the use on non-free images states:

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)"

On my talk page I argue: How can one claim that no free version is available, if one didn't try to get a particular image released under GFDL by asking the copyright holder(s)? Doesn't that effectively create a free image? That appears to be a recommendation here, but how many actually follow it?

The person who uploaded the image stated: "Indeed, it is best practice to request of any known and accessible copyright holder that they release a given image under GFDL. ...but there is the element of time (as you suggest) and field of focus. I devote my attention to writing, designing, and editing quality encyclopedia articles--part of our core mission. ...There are many people here who spend their time creating and soliciting free images and I applaud them. I devote most of my time to writing, designing, and copyediting because that's where my talents lie and that's where my energy is most productively spent."

Nowhere in criteria 1 for fair use images is there any mention of convenience or expediency. Criteria 1 is consistent with a philosophy that says fair use images will be used as an exception and not the norm. It is up to the person uploading the image to prove that no free equivalent exists or could be easily created. Without asking the original copyright holder to release the image under GFDL, you can't say that. Nitelinger 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepIn midnight movie and in Cassandra Peterson. The former, as Mr. Geist, says, is not a genre but an exhibition practice. While I think the discussion of the theatrical exhibition practice would be significantly enhanced by a historical photograph illustrating the communal/interactive nature of the event, it is hard to imagine an illustration more informative about the television exhibition practice than the television ad we see here. I'm not sure how Mr. Nitelinger can argue against the informative value given its provenance; in any event, I encourage him to look at some of the better histories of cinema and television exhibition practicies and he will see that this sort of illustration is considered instrumental to such histories. Per our non-free image policy, this image add significantly to an understanding of the topic by showing us what a leading host looked like, how she and the films she hosted were advertised, and the flexibility of the definition of "midnight movie" in a way that no encyclopedic text could convey. Similarly, in the article on Ms. Peterson, this image demonstrates how her defining persona and star-making vehicle were promoted, information essential to understanding her career--which is, after all, the point of the article.
• As a side point, Mr. Nitelinger now seems to want to reinterpret Wikipedia policy. The policy that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" is widely understood to refer to free images that either already exist or could readily be created by Wikipedia contributors. The sort of image we are discussing here, like many historical cultural images is neither. If Mr. Nitelinger is suggesting that no fair use image be permitted on Wikipedia unless a free use license for it has been sought and rejected, I'm not sure this is the appropriate venue for initiating a debate over that proposal.DocKino 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I haven't seen so many people over-analyze a simple advertisement, as I have here. I also stand by my contention that the image can easily be replaced by text and a simple link to the page on my site where it exists — this being an interactive medium. Nitelinger 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG DeleteFair use is specific about it's uses. This is a clear case of the source of the image objecting to it's use along with no good reason for it's use. This appears to be DCgiest trying to play heavy handed as he does on "HIS" article. If this is not deleted it will become the excuse needed to steal any image by anyone for any reason. Wikipedia HAS RULES AND THIS COUNTRY HAS COPY RIGHT LAWS, I suggest adhereing to both. Also it should be noted that several of the other images break wiki fair use policy. One is not mentioned in the prose at all and another is a huge image that is not a low resolution to qualify as Fair Use, and known of them have captions that refere to information from the article so realy known of them are need in the article. This is a clear case of mususe of Fair Use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.166 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retort: Really now. First, you should know that "source of the image objecting to it's [sic] use" is completely irrelevant to fair use when the source is not the image's rights holder. Second, please don't deceive by claiming "no good reason for it's [sic] use". I offered several good reasons for its use:

1. It illustrates exactly what Elvira, the best-known midnight movie host, looks like
2. It illustrates how the station focused its promotion of the Movie Macabre package far more on the host's erotic style than on the movies themeselves
3. It gives us the rather suprising information that a station would use a sexual double entendre as an ad lead line in this context--and in a virtually identical font to its own tagline
4. It gives us the text of the ad, showing how the films in the package were characterized
5. It facilitates discussion of how a specific station programmed genre films, often double-billing a syndicated package followed by a "true" midnight airing--hard to see how to get into such an example without the image

You have not refuted a single one of these points. So, please, stop misrepresenting the current state of the debate.—DCGeist 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stop misrepresenting the current state of the debate. Each one of your points above has been either refuted or shown to be irrelevant to the article. There is no excuse for using this image in the article Midnight movie. And using it in Cassandra Peterson is just showing what a living person looks like. —Angr 05:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retort²: 69.62.180.166 didn't, but I'll take yet another shot:

While the rights to the original image are owned by WCGV-TV, I did reconstruct elements of the image that were damaged, and as such are different that the original. You can dispute any claim I might make as to this particular version, but you can not state with any certainty that I have no rights. Only a court can do that. As to the points on which you base your fair use rationale:

1. Apparently a free version of how she looked is available
2. No film is listed as this was a generic ad that was used a number of times over the show's run
3. You have a penchant for over-analyzing
4. So?
5. The ad has nothing to do with the film that aired at midnight. Text easily substitutes. In fact, as I will AGAIN argue, IF your point were valid, then text WITH a link to the page on my website (List of films shown on Elvira's Movie Macabre on WCGV-TV) where the ad appears, does a MUCH better job, as the second film is listed there. Incidentally, I listed the second film on the same list because I happened to stumble upon the fact that they ran a second film, and this was an efficient way to get both listed — nothing more. Nitelinger 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. The purpose of trying not to use fair use images is to avoid any legal trouble for Wikipedia. Here we have a take down request. To not delete this image after such a request is inviting what we are trying to avoid. Also I believe the image fails WP:NFCC #8 for the article it is in. It is not needed. -Nv8200p talk 01:08, 28 October 2007 (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.