Three identical images of a generic bed and breakfast, all with that damnable ampersand that cause innumerable problems in filenames. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. That ampersand makes it such a pain.... — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Obviously an old image, thus unlikely to have been taken by the uploader. No source specified for verification. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)
Keep if it may really be useful in a guide. Delete if it is out of scope. An image's age is in itself never a reason for deletion since copyright effectively ceases sooner or later. Riggwelter 11:47, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
The problem is that we don't know that this is so old as to be in the public domain. What we do know is that we can't assume (as we normally do) that the uploader owns the image and releases it under a CC-by-sa 3.0 license. LtPowers 08:18, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Delete. I agree, it is old, unlikely to have been taken by the uploader, and lacking a source. Age is not a reason to delete, but lets not exclude common sense when it comes to examining the licencing of images. --Inas 21:54, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
The source on Commons uses the Copyrighted Free Use template, which is only supposed to be used when the copyright holder is someone other than the uploader. The uploader did not indicate ownership of the file. I realize that on Shared we assume the uploader owns the image, but Commons is more strict and I've tagged it for deletion there. LtPowers 11:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Gorgeous picture, but it looks promotional to me (with the posed model). TinEye shows a couple of matches, although they're smaller than this version. Still, that's evidence that the image is not original to the uploader, which means our standard assumption that sourceless images belong to the uploader is probably not correct. LtPowers 11:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
Keep. You don't know that. Unless you find proof of that, I suggest we keep it. --Tiagox2 09:18, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
The proof we have is that the image is not original to Wikitravel. The uploader did not actively claim to be the copyright holder, merely slapped on a copyright tag and provided no indication of source; no "I took this photo", no "I release this image under this license", no nothing. For uploads that are obviously snapshots and for which we can find no evidence of copies elsewhere on the Web, there's a long-standing precedent (with which I do not agree) that we can assume the uploader owns the image. In this case, that's a wholly unwarranted assumption. With the presence of derivatives of this image elsewhere on the web, we now require more evidence from the uploader that he or she actually holds the copyright. LtPowers 16:27, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
Delete. Although I'm not much for faces, the photo appears to be of the same woman that is pictured in the pool on the main web page for the hotel in question. Maybe not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but certainly on balance of probabilities. --Inas 21:58, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
The uploader's other upload is Image:Machida JR ekimae.jpg and I don't have a high level of confidence in its originality, either, though I can't prove it's a copyvio.
Image:Walmart AV.jpg is used all over the place, highly unlikely User:Banana1 is the author without more evidence. It certainly wasn't taken just today, since it shows a pre-dawn Wal-Mart line, likely on the day after Thanksgiving.
Image:Lebanonhills.jpg was clearly not taken on August 13; even in Minnesota the leaves haven't started changing yet. TinEye couldn't find any matches, but this user's track record is very poor.
That's all but one of his/her uploads for today. The last one is Image:Sloppy joe.jpg, which I couldn't find anywhere, but what are the chances this one's legal if all the other ones weren't?
I repeat again that we should probably just delete all of this user's uploads.
Keep. You cannot nominate an item for deletion based solely on one's "track record," be it fabulous, amazing or both. That said, I’ve noticed that you spend a great deal of time sifting through the Wikitravel universe and recording your (mostly negative and sarcasm-tinged) findings on this page. For someone who doesn’t have a digital camera or electronic scanner, is there any other way for me to improve the pages visually?
I’ve tried to claw my way through the image policy, but it is a bear. I called my brother-in-law, Phil, who is a copyright lawyer, and asked him to help me out, but he said he was too busy with work to worry about a travel website. Seeing that you have eons of free time, perhaps you can expound the process for the dozens of us you have crucified on this page? Also, please do not refer to me as a he/she.
Images you upload have to be yours, in the public domain (usually made by the US federal government) or explicitly licensed by someone else for use under Creative Commons. Flickr [1] and Wikimedia are good places to find the latter. --PeterTalk 20:54, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, would User:Banana1 prefer that I use "it", or that I avoid all pronouns altogether? LtPowers 14:31, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Making sure that all of the images used on Wikitravel are legal and non-copywritten is part of maintaining the site. LtPowers' nominations are usually violations; It's not as if he is purposefully nominating legal photos, and assessing photos is certainly not one of the most enjoyable tasks to take up on Wikitravel. If you upload legal, correctly licensed photos, your uploads will no longer be nominated and can then be used to add aesthetic value to the travel guides. ChubbyWimbus 23:32, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
So your brother-in-law is a copyright lawyer but doesn't take you seriously or even give you just a little advice? Anyways, "Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work." Read about this concept at Wikipedia. The person who created the photographs has ownership of the photo, unless he/she has released it under certain licenses (or the public domain), the creator of the photo has been dead over 70 years, or it is the work of a FEDERAL government agency, it is copyrighted. If we knowingly allow users to upload copyrighted photos to Wikitravel, WT will be liable for copyright infringement.
It's quite simple really...we can't use someone's work (to which they have legally-protected ownership via copyright laws) without their permission. It's on par with stealing! Because of the goal of WT to be freely shared, we can only allow images with certain licenses or which have been released into the public domain. Sometimes, the types of images users uploaded appear to have just been pulled off the internet and are suspicious, so we see if that's the case. And voila, it's clear you have uploaded images which belong to others and which you have no legal right to. It's our obligation to delete these "stolen", if you will, images. We're not the Gestapo here, just acting within the law. AHeneen 11:26, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Delete. Banana1, it's really not that hard -- upload only photos that you're sure about, preferably ones you've taken yourself, and ask if unsure. Since you apparently didn't consider this before uploading, and still aren't coming clean (or do you have rights to any of those pictures?), we now have to clean up after you. Jpatokal 08:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Deleted as batch. – D. Guillaime 21:00, 2 January 2011 (EST)
All rights reserved at Flickr. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
This, and the two following images, are showing up as cc-by-sa-2.0 as of today. Keep with corrected license template, which I've done. -- D. Guillaime 21:00, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 16:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Actually, I copied the informations from Wikimedia Commons. I changed the source, so now you don't need to delete it. --Tiagox2 16:07, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Ah, apologies; of course, I had no way of knowing. Thanks for changing the source link; that makes it much clearer. LtPowers 21:28, 22 August 2010 (EDT)
TinEye found a match, although of lower resolution. Still, that means this image isn't original to Wikitravel, and it shows identifiable people. It doesn't appear to be used anywhere; I checked :en, :de, and :nl. LtPowers 09:16, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:00, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Uploader helpfully included Template:Copyvio in the first of these images, clearly marking it for us. Notably, uploader claims: "All rights reserced by SEOUL METRO, and asked for permission to use on wiki travel". That's not sufficient for us. We need free media, not just media we've been given permission to use. LtPowers 15:30, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
Deleted, patently obvious copyvios. Jpatokal 01:23, 12 September 2010 (EDT)
TinEye shows a couple almost-matches, but they're on blogs and other unreliable sources. Still, it's clear this has been processed and the uploader has been shown (above) to have a tenuous grasp of copyright. LtPowers 08:23, 26 August 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:00, 2 January 2011 (EST)
TinEye found it elsewhere on the web; although they can't be seen anymore, it's clear it's not original to the uploader, who has shown not to be well-versed on copyright issues. I think we need to question all of User:AM-TR's uploads. LtPowers 08:35, 26 August 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:00, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Image comes from a blog. The blog's footer indeed declares a CC-by-sa 3.0 license, but I don't think the images in the blog entry came from the blogger; note the elevation drawing, which would be copyrighted by the architect. Given the quality and variety of shots, I have to think these were official photos taken by the architect or the building owner. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
"Photo for public download from SeaDream's website" does not mean the author released it into the public domain. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Note that these images are labeled PD-author, not PD-self, which means the uploader is claiming that someone else is the author and released them into the public domain. Verifying that requires that a source be listed, which none of these have.
Image:Barasu.jpg - the source website says "All rights reserved".
Image:Pinai.jpg - originally had the same source as above; since removed, but now there's no indication at all of where the image came from. Credited to "Rtanaka", whoever that is.
Keep. I don't understand how a public sign can possibly be copyright. If it is, it would be copyright to the local council who, one would expect, would be only too keen for it to be used in places where their town is publicized and thus would not object. The photo is from Wikipedia Commons and appears on the Wikipedia page on Hollingdean. It is an interesting sign showing a local landmark and not just a sign with the name of the town. Roundtheworld 06:58, 8 September 2010 (EDT)
Note: the file was deleted from Wikipedia here. LtPowers 09:49, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Keep If it's a local landmark, it should be kept. --Tiagox2 07:05, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. IMO copyright clearly subsists in this work, and reproduction on Wikitravel is clearly a breach. Personally, I don't like these welcome signs on articles. They tell us very little about the city or town, and add little value overall in terms of travel content. (With a few exceptions) no one visits a town to see the entry sign. If we thought it was worth obtaining permission from the council to reproduce under CC-BY-SA, then we should do so. --Inas 21:22, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Uploaded in January 2009, but I found it while looking for the above image's source. This looks to be a valiant effort to create a transit map that uses the appropriate route colors without violating MTD's copyright -- but the numbers and route shields are in exactly the same place. That might be okay on it's own, but the underlying map had to come from somewhere -- if not from the C-U MTD web site, then from Google Maps or something. LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
I'd like to know where it came from before deleting, if possible. If the streets are based on OpenStreetMap or the like, it might still be acceptable. – D. Guillaime 21:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. The user hasn't responded to a request for source info in 2 years. The map is also likely quite dated, and we don't have the original svg source, or any other source to continue to update the map. --Inas 21:43, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Identifiable persons. LtPowers 21:18, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
Any market has identifiable persons in them. This means we cannot place pictures of markets anymore? I think image policy is quite clear on this subject: "However, in public spaces people give up a certain degree of privacy, which means that they can be photographed (and cannot stop the process). At Wikitravel, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content. For example, you can upload a picture of a crowded market or plaza, as long as you could take out or substitute any given person in it without materially affecting the picture." --Globe-trotter 07:59, 4 December 2010 (EST)
Yes, but the two people on the left side of the image are very prominent in the picture. I don't see them as peripheral. LtPowers 11:18, 4 December 2010 (EST)
There really isn't anything much notable in the picture except people... Texugo 11:33, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. I think I agree with Texugo, it shows the people and not the market street. The people in the photo don't appear to be people who have given up a degree of their privacy, they look like people who would be legitimately annoyed if there photo were reused in a publicity shot, or whatever. --Inas 21:47, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Alright, just delete it. Then I also suggest the following file for deletion: Image:Soiarab.jpg. --globe-trotter 06:17, 20 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Any further comments on this one and the few below? One pro/one con isn't much of a consensus.... – D. Guillaime 21:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
What about your opinion? haha...Texugo 11:31, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Keep and replace with a better image ASAP. At this resolution, I don't think I could recognise the person in this image. I've seen a few studies saying that 80 pixels is probably required for facial recognition. I think with any image where the face is only 30 pixels or less, we should just it pass. --Inas 21:39, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Kept. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Unidentifiable vegetables identifiable people in photo. Texugo 09:39, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
Again, this looks incidental to me. The lady whose face we see is secondary to the focus of the image. LtPowers 10:10, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
I'm gonna stick with my guns on this one. The primary focus is her and her stall. Texugo 23:54, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
Weak Keep. I think this one is really marginal. It does show more of the market, and the person is more incidental. The photo would still make sense without the person, and getting a market photo without any market stallholders will always be challenging. She appears to be the stallkeeper, so to the extent that she appears in the photo she is professional person associated with the business, and not some random bypasser who go in shot. --Inas 21:50, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Kept. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Delete. There is no indication that this is a user-made map and no indication that it can be licensed under the CC-SA. -- Ryan 00:33, 10 November 2010 (EST)
Delete, found it here. LtPowers 19:50, 14 November 2010 (EST)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:16, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. This image is the first result that comes up when doing a Google image search and there is no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- Ryan 16:42, 10 November 2010 (EST)
Technically, as plain text it's probably not copyrightable in the United States. I would say, however, that it's out of scope. LtPowers 18:42, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Deleted. – D. Guillaime 21:16, 2 January 2011 (EST)
It's copywritten right on the photo with an obnoxious border. ChubbyWimbus 03:21, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
That might be reason not to use it, and we might want to delete it for that reason instead, but the license seems fine; it's linked to the photographer's flickr page, which confirms its licensing as cc-by-2.0. — D. Guillaime 01:36, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
Kept. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Delete. The image and description page are being used as an advertisement for a hotel, which is out of scope per Wikitravel Shared:Goals and non-goals (Non-goal: "Make an advertising brochure"). -- Ryan 14:15, 5 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. Based on the file name something clearly went haywire when this was uploaded. The same image exists with the much nicer name of Image:Cochem, Rhineland Plalz, April,11,2008 006.jpg. -- Ryan 22:25, 8 January 2011 (EST)
According to the source site [4] (machine translation to English: [5]), their images may not be reproduced without permission. -- D. Guillaime 19:07, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. It is useless anyway, as I already created this map [6]. --globe-trotter 06:22, 20 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Speedy Delete Attribution and year are on the photo and people are all identifiable —The preceding comment was added by 130.49.150.21 (talk • contribs) .
I don't think speedy is appropriate, but I have no problem with deletion as I can't see it as in scope. LtPowers 09:46, 8 January 2011 (EST)
Delete - as per LtPowers --Inas 21:40, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Speedy Delete Removed earlier from WT Cameron Highlands, inappropriate advertising and /or commercial promotional image containing recognisable persons from which a release has not been provided. Felix505 07:11, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Speedy Delete Removed earlier from WT Cameron Highlands, inappropriate advertising and /or commercial promotional image containing recognisable persons from which a release has not been provided. Felix505 07:11, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Speedy Delete Removed earlier from WT Cameron Highlands, inappropriate advertising and /or commercial promotional image containing recognisable persons from which a release has not been provided. Felix505 14:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Deleted. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Delete all - texugo 22h28min de 27 de Fevereiro de 2011 (EST)
Images of hotels are customary in any Disney travel guide, as they are so iconic. I would be very reluctant to delete those. LtPowers 15:18, 12 March 2011 (EST)
In fact, I'm actively using several images of Disney hotels in Wikitravel Walt Disney World; a policy prohibiting them would be devastating. LtPowers 15:19, 12 March 2011 (EST)
Keep per LtPowers - when visiting Disneyland the hotels are attractions just like the activities in the park itself, so these are less images of businesses than they are examples of the types of attraction at a Disney park. However, nominating some of these images for deletion individually based on the quality of the photo might make sense as several are poor images. -- Ryan 12:41, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
Delete - Likely copyvio: map indicates that it is from the São Paulo State Government, and while I didn't find this particular map (tineye didn't find it, probably because the uploader altered the legend in the image), everything on their website appears to be copyrighted. texugo 10:26, 6 March 2011 (EST)
We don't usually do logos, and it doesn't really add anything to the article that half a sentence wouldn't anyway. It may also be copyrighted, as no source is quoted.
Recognizable people in potentially ... compromising ... states of undress. I realize it's a gay pride parade, but that doesn't mean those people want their likenesses used freely. LtPowers 09:47, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
Aren't public events and festivals exceptions to the "no recognizable faces" rule? It doesn't get much more public than a parade that 450,000 people attend. I don't think it's against the current policy as it is written. I have other photos from the parade, but parades always feature people. Are you proposing changing policy to ban parade photos? Gay-themed photos?
Wikipedia doesn't have a rule against recognizable people in photos. Image policy#People in photos says "At Wikitravel, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content." I don't think the people in this image are peripheral at all. If it weren't for the skimpy clothing, I'd probably let it go, but I think we need to be more sensitive to privacy rights when it comes to images like this. I freely admit I could be wrong, though, which is why we have these discussions. LtPowers 16:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
I sort of see your point, but our lead picture for the Bali feature was a people-only photo, as well, and that was on the main page without any questioning (that I know of). I guess I just feel that if someone volunteers to be in a Pride Parade, particularly of this size, there is simply no way that they can expect no photos to be taken. Photography is actually encouraged, and most of the time, if they notice a camera pointed at them, they pose. I think if it featured spectators, it could be a violation. I do have a photo of the parade with no identifiable people, but since the topic was brought up, it's probably best to talk it out for future reference. Hopefully others will weigh in on this, too. I'm kind of surprised no Pride photos have been uploaded before! ChubbyWimbus 17:40, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
Delete The people are identifiable. The shot doesn't really show the parade, but people just hanging about. Doesn't look like it would add much to the article. --Inas 21:33, 16 January 2011 (EST)
For the record, I think the people in the photo are on a low parade float. See how they tower above the spectators in the foreground? LtPowers 09:54, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Yes, it's a parade float, not spectators. I think showing identifiable spectators would definitely warrant deletion, but this is one of the floats and I think gay travel has value, at least to those who seek it. I think it is currently making the "gay and lesbian travel" article look more lively. ChubbyWimbus 18:58, 29 January 2011 (EST)
Delete. I'm with Inas on this one. You have to squint to realize they're on a float at all, especially in thumbnail view, so it doesn't come across as particularly relevant; a wide-angle shot of a float, even with spectators in the frame, would probably be a much better picture if the faces were too small to identify. — D. Guillaime 15:37, 20 February 2011 (EST)
Well, pictures always come with captions. I don't think it's at all confusing when you view them in context:
[9] (End of "Do")
[10] (Under United States)
After seeing the picture in relevant articles, do you still feel this way? ChubbyWimbus
Delete - I'll throw my vote in here too. I'd say this doesn't meet the threshold for recognizable people in a peripheral context. Lots of parade floats even in gay pride parades have something to look at besides the guys themselves. This photo isn't a good representation of a float at all, even if you can tell after some study that they are higher than the spectators in the foreground. I think it's pretty poor composition overall, and not good enough for us to make a "people in photos" exception. texugo 11:33, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Alright then, when I have time I'll try to upload a more appealing photo that "adds value to the article", although I still feel that it's pretty difficult to get a nice parade float photo without people in it. And at the Pride events, the flamboyant and scanty outfits really are what most people want to see, because it's what they're known for. ChubbyWimbus 21:44, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
It doesn't have to be devoid of people; just make sure it's clear they're in a parade. LtPowers 09:05, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Result: Deleted - texugo 06:42, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. This is a company logo, and the image page is an advertisement, which violates our guidelines against advertising. -- Ryan 12:38, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
Delete. This is the first result in a Google image search and there is no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- Ryan 23:35, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. Satellite image from the same user as the above three with no indication that it can be licensed under the CC-SA license. -- Ryan 23:35, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. The same image can be found at http://rockzombi.iblog.co.za/page/2/ and there is no indication that it can be re-licensed for use on Wikitravel. -- Ryan 23:40, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. The same image can be found at http://www.dauntlessfishing.com/ and there is no indication that it can be re-licensed for use on Wikitravel. -- Ryan 23:40, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. The same image can be found at http://thetowercottage.com/ and there is no indication that it can be re-licensed for use on Wikitravel. -- Ryan 00:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. The same image can be found at http://www.everywheremag.com/places/5053 and there is no indication that it can be re-licensed for use on Wikitravel. -- Ryan 00:14, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Taken from http://www.vietbalo.vn/ with a clear watermark from that site. Didn't find the image on that site, but everything else there seems to be copyrighted.
Delete - I'd say speedy it if someone can second me on this. texugo 01:06, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Delete. If it's on another site and not explicitly re-licensed then it should be deleted. -- Ryan 01:50, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
This is a strange one. The filename bears no resemblance to the picture's content, and if you look at the page description history, it seems to be used only as an attempt at pushing a completely unrelated commercial link, presumably for SEO purposes. The image is not used by any article. Even if it were to be used, and the licensing somehow verified, that filename's a problem.
Speedied - Subsequently re-additions of the spam link in the image description have made the uploader's intentions clear, so I'm deleting it now. texugo 03:05, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
An open and shut case for speedy deletion. So, I deleted them because of the text advertising website which was embedded in the image. It was most certainly also avCopyright violation/advertisement. Riggwelter 18:02, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[6]](http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/5/5c/Amsterdam-unsafety-map.png/350px-Amsterdam-unsafety-map.png){kind=link}
