File talk:PresidentPutin.JPG
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 3 May 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Is there a journalist depicted in this image? Note that all images in the category "Putin with journalists" show real flesh and blood journalists. Here we see a painted dog. Drork (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously Putin's relationship with the media is the subject of this cartoon; category:Vladimir Putin with journalists is most appropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem is that the category is dedicated to photographs of Putin with journalists. This is a caricature expressing an opinion about Putin's relations with the press. It simply doesn't fit in. Drork (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The category is "dedicated" to any files (photos, other images, sound files) concerning Putin and journalists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose we both have good sight. Just look at the images included in that category, and see for yourself. Drork (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your eyesight is missing something when you write in your edit summary: "But there is no journalist in this image." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- How many journalists who walk on all four have you recently seen? Drork (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your eyesight is missing something when you write in your edit summary: "But there is no journalist in this image." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose we both have good sight. Just look at the images included in that category, and see for yourself. Drork (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The category is "dedicated" to any files (photos, other images, sound files) concerning Putin and journalists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem is that the category is dedicated to photographs of Putin with journalists. This is a caricature expressing an opinion about Putin's relations with the press. It simply doesn't fit in. Drork (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that Category:Vladimir Putin with journalists is an appropriate category. The name would seem to suggest that it would include images showing Vladimir Putin with journalists. This particular image doesn't show Vladimir Putin with journalists, rather it seems to be an expression of the creator's view of Putin's relationship with the media. It doesn't show Putin with a journalist, it shows Putin with an dog as a metaphor for the "media". Adambro (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed that this cartoon includes an "all right reserved symbol" with reference to a site? Suppose this symbol is void, shouldn't this image be rejected until the misleading remark be removed? Pieter, you seemed to be very cautious about these kinds of issues in the past... Drork (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that the author himself uploaded these drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commons policy says that watermarks shouldn't be included in images so it should be removed but it certainly isn't necessary to first delete this image as Drork seems to suggest. The symbol © doesn't mean "all rights reserved", it simply is a notice that the work is protected by copyright. That doesn't in itself necessarily contradict the release under a free licence because it is the copyright that gives the creator the exclusive right to decide what they do with the image which can of course include releasing it under a free licence. However, it is as Drork notes, potentially misleading and so is unhelpful and should be removed according to Commons policy on watermarks as has been noted on the image page since the addition of the watermark template back in March. Ideally this should be left to the creator who will hopefully be in a position to remove it without damaging the image. Adambro (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not suggest anything at this point. However, images with wrong license tags, or with contradictory information about them (even in minor details) were deleted or nominated for deletion. This image includes an embedded misleading statement. "(C)" is almost always interpreted as "all rights reserved". I just wonder how come no one noticed that. Drork (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commons policy says that watermarks shouldn't be included in images so it should be removed but it certainly isn't necessary to first delete this image as Drork seems to suggest. The symbol © doesn't mean "all rights reserved", it simply is a notice that the work is protected by copyright. That doesn't in itself necessarily contradict the release under a free licence because it is the copyright that gives the creator the exclusive right to decide what they do with the image which can of course include releasing it under a free licence. However, it is as Drork notes, potentially misleading and so is unhelpful and should be removed according to Commons policy on watermarks as has been noted on the image page since the addition of the watermark template back in March. Ideally this should be left to the creator who will hopefully be in a position to remove it without damaging the image. Adambro (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
