File talk:Jerry Bresler 1955 Orchestra Leader.jpg

This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... I read a lot of the WP information and all the links to links to links before I uploaded this picture. The guy is dead, there were no other pictures I could find on the Internet and it was only being used with a biography, so I thought I followed the instructions regarding the limited use of a non-free picture. Apparently I erred. I will remove the image so that at least the text will remain. Right now, I don't have the energy or desire or knowledge to spend more time trying to determine what I did wrong before you delete the whole article. Mursimon (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my error. I just reread the warning and saw that it applies to the image and not to the whole article. I did remove the image from the page. Mursimon (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to know what was meant by "it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the Non-free fair use tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it." If I knew what the correct tag is I would have put it on there in the first place. I also don't know what the "current tag" is. Mursimon (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thinking that perhaps the "invalid licensing tag" reference was pertaining to the visible "Corbis" label in the photo, I replaced the picture with a reduced size image, 350 X 420, reduced the resolution to 100 ppi from the original 300 ppi and removed the Corbis logo. I restored the image back to the Jerry Bresler page. Does that satisfy the requirements? Mursimon (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the problem is that this image was obtained from Corbis, not the watermark. Corbis are a commercial photographic agency and we set a much higher standard for images from commercial agencies; they can only be used in instances where the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary (see WP:NFC#UUI#7), to ensure compliance with WP:NFCC#2. Apologies for the confusing message, it's from a standard template designed to cover various situations and the part about finding an alternative tag was not relevant to this particular instance. January (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. It sets Wikipedia a few notches above the usual indifference that is so prevalent on the Internet. I guess what got to me was that I thought I was following the instructions, so the "Quick Deletion" tag was a bit of a surprise. I have found a better method to determining whether or not an image is OK. Ask first, then proceed if approved. Thanks January! - Murray - Mursimon (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted - Unfortunately, it does qualify for speedy deletion. If the uploader could make a credible case that CORBIS doesn't own the copyrights because it was a publicity photograph published without a copyright notice (see {{PD-US-no notice}}) or its copyright was not renewed (see {{PD-US-not renewed}})), then feel free to ask for undeletion. Fair warning you may face the wrath of CORBIS's lawyers, even if you are right, so you might want to think twice before going that route. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.