Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

File:Manta gone 60.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FU image not justified for identification of this vehicle, see here. The image is not being used in the article the rationale was written for, and would fail NFCC8 in it anyway. ÷seresin 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image is taken from a commercial film, but is used to illustrate an article not on that film, but on a car which appeared in the film. The fair use justification cited for the image is for "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents". Clearly this does not apply here. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hyrule Ocarina Of Time.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet non-free use guidelines; presumably the manual is copyright Smappy (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WaitingForArmytoDie.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that doesn't increase understanding of the subject of the articles it's in (Agent Orange and Mayerson Schreiber McDevitt, P.C.); should be deleted per WP:NFCC#8. Shubinator (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is the cover of a book. The fair use justification cited refers to use "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Neither of the articles in which the image is used discusses the book; each of them contains one passing mention of the book. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfast Castle 2007.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr page for this image shows the license as CC-BY-ND-2.0, which is not free (enough). The photographer's other Flickr pics also seem to be tagged no derivatives. If not free (enough), this is surely replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that it's tagged as CC-BY-3.0, a licence which can't be selected on Flickr, suggests a mistake has been made here. It probably isn't too unreasonable to assume there could have been a mistake regarding whether it was ND as well so delete since we don't have anything to suggest the licence is correct. Adambro (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Adambro has a good point that the license surely wasn't changed from cc-by-3.0 to the cc-by-nd license currently in use. Unless the photographer changes this to a Wikimedia-acceptable license or grants permission via OTRS, we can't keep this. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lina Medina.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a picture of a living person, it appears to come from a medical journal. Using a picture like that in public, without protection of the identity of the person in question constitutes a clear violation of HIPAA rules on Protected health information. Posting it here is actually a criminal offense. JdH (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem pretty confident about this situation but I think there are at least a few points which need to be clarified. Do we know for example whether permission was granted for the image to be published? Do we know that HIPAA would apply to an image which could have been published decades before the act came into effect? Finally, do we know that HIPAA would apply at all to Wikipedia? Our article on the subject says "Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of certain information held by "covered entities" (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)" Clearly Wikipedia isn't such an organisation. Pending any clarification of these issues, I am not satisfied that displaying this image violates the aforementioned law and so would suggest that we Keep the image. Adambro (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical journals hold the copyright on all articles they publish, and that most certainly includes the pictures in it. There is no indication that permission was granted, or even applied for. What you don't seem to realize is that this picture is of a living person who is explicitely identified, and on the basis of that alone not only is HIPAA violated, but privacy rights as well. Did anybody ask Mrs Medina whether she grants permission that this picture of her is published on Wikipedia? JdH (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of privacy is important of course but it isn't necessarily directly related to the HIPAA issue which was the focus of the deletion nomination. I fully realise "this picture is of a living person who is explicitely identified", I don't from that though conclude that HIPAA is violated as you suggest. As I've already said, I have some doubts as to whether HIPAA would actually apply at all to an organisation like Wikipedia/WMF. In my view therefore, HIPAA isn't relevant here, the question is simply one of privacy. I don't believe it is a straightforward as us requiring permission from the individual portrayed. It seems that the image was published 70 years ago in a medical journal and I note a Google image search turns up many examples of this image. So, assuming it was legitimately published and considering the wide availability of this image, I don't feel that us displaying the image can really be a significant intrusion of the individual's privacy. Adambro (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIPAA is all about privacy: It is illegal to violate a person's privacy when it comes to her medical records. How would you respond if your medical records were published on Wikipedia? Your LDL level, your bloodpressure, MRI's of your brain, everything, without anonymizing the data? You don't have to worry though: If somebody did that without your consent (s)he would be thrown in jail. I don't see why different rules would apply for Mrs Medina. JdH (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act#Privacy Rule doesn't seem to say "It is illegal to violate a person's privacy when it comes to her medical records". Rather, it seems that it sets out the responsibilities of certain organisations who hold medical records. As the article says, the rule "regulates the use and disclosure of certain information held by "covered entities" (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)" Wikipedia/WMF doesn't sound like it is classed as a "covered entity" so the Privacy Rule of HIPAA doesn't seem to apply. You don't seem to have addressed that fundamental point. Adambro (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent the point I have been making: The issue here is that Mrs Medina's privacy has been violated all along. I don't know how her name came to be associated with that picture in the first place; did that come from the medical journal where it was published? I don't know that, but if that is the case then that journal has violated her privacy, even by the standards of 1939. If, on the other hand, her name came from some tabloid journalist Wikipedia shouldn't be using it at all, because such a source does not meet WP standards. What Wikipedia should not do is aggravate this breach of privacy, and continue the scandalous behaviour that has led to this abysmal situation in the first place. btw: mentioning her name in that article is inappropriate as well; the article should be anonymized. JdH (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your main argument so far has appeared to be that displaying the image is illegal under the HIPAA. I'm sorry if I am wrong to form that opinion but you have repeatedly stated it is illegal. Privacy concerns are important but it is possible to violate someone's privacy without violating he law. Suggesting we should not mention her name is somewhat extreme. It is very widely reported. You can't put the genie back in bottle. Nevertheless, the talk page would be the place to discuss such ideas. Your concerns about the subject's privacy are noble enough but this image is already widely available and very significant in showing the youngest recorded mother. Adambro (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not a lawyer, and do not know whether this violates the HIPAA. However, in some ways Wikipedia's policies on use of images goes beyond merely not breaking the law. Whether or not we have a legal obligation to remove this image, I believe we have a moral obligation to do so. Unless it can be shown that the subject of the photograph is happy for it to be given unlimited public exposure we have no right to display it. It forms an invasion of privacy, and may well be something which the subject would prefer not to be displayed publicly. I am aware that Wikipedia does not generally allow the fact that the subject of an article wishes particular information to be suppressed to hold sway, but in this case I think the wishes of the subject (who was a very young child at the time of the incident) should be respected, and furthermore I think the onus is on anyone claiming that she has given permission to show evidence that she has. The fact that she refuses to be interviewed also encourages a presumption that she would prefer minimal publicity about the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that you've taken the time to explain your position rather than simply stating "Delete" or "Keep" but I don't think it is particularly helpful to remove this image from the relevant article pending the outcome of this discussion as I note you have done. I'd suggest that until the decision is made to delete this image, assuming of course that is the outcome, the image should be left in place. Adambro (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This photo was taken by Ms. Medina's physician (Edmundo Escomel) in early 1939, to whom we must assume the copyright belongs. In turn, Dr. Escomel provided the photograph to La Presse Medicale for publication therein on 31 May 1939 (in an article entitled "La Plus Jeune Mère du Monde"). Without being privy to Peruvian medical laws, release information, or even the statutes of copyright there, this photograph has been connected with Ms. Medina for 70 years, 8 months, and 12 days having been published by both a physician and medical journal whom I assume were well versed with the contemporary pertinent and jurisdiction-specific laws for doing so. Therefore, how do the current United States' healthcare privacy laws and statutes apply to the release of patient records and information in Peru on a Peruvian citizen over 70 years ago? Furthermore, if anybody's more astute as to these matters, can we check to see whether or not this has passed into the Peruvian public ___domain? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With regards to pd_THOR's comment right above this, I do not think this file is in the Public Domain. If you check out page 14, Chapter 2 on this link, it mentions the rights belong to the author for 70 years after his or her death. Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, for this file to be public ___domain the author would have to have died relatively shortly after taking the picture.--Rockfang (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, but thanks for looking into it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a two-part discussion — (1) copyrights and (2) privacy issues. As far as (1) while this is likely copyrighted, it surely falls under fair use. We don't generally permit nonfree images of living people, but an exception is generally made when there's a need to illustrate the living person in a previous state; and a contemporary photograph of Lina Medina would be altogether insufficient to replace this image, since there's no way that anyone can createa a contemporary image of her in this condition. As far as (2) I don't really see how republishing an already-published image is a problem in this situation. It's not as if this were scanned by someone who went into a doctor's office and gained unauthorised access to a patient's file. If you still believe that there's a problem here, maybe you should ask for advice from Mike Godwin? Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1955 doubled die cent.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded claimed image PD-art/PD-scan, but coins are not "two-dimensional artwork"s and this may not be a valid claim. The underlying object is PD-USGov, but this representation of it may not be. If non-free, certainly replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1796 Draped Bust Small Eagle Quarter.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded claimed image PD-art/PD-scan, but coins are not "two-dimensional artwork"s and this may not be a valid claim. The underlying object is PD-USGov, but this representation of it may not be. If non-free, probably replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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