(Gorn starship renders)
m (Gorn starship renders: + reply;)
Line 39: Line 39:
*'''Delete''', because Borat is starting to make fun of us. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', because Borat is starting to make fun of us. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
**Who is Borat?--[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
**Who is Borat?--[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup>[[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
*** [[Wikipedia:Borat]]. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
== stsf1 & stsf2 ==
== stsf1 & stsf2 ==

Revision as of 16:46, November 8, 2006


Image:Warp factor chart old.png

Image:Warp factor chart old.png
A chart showing the relation between warp factors and "normal speeds" - which is based solely on non-canon background information and on top of that, not really useful anyway. -- Cid Highwind 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember us deleting something similar to this... Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...And way too small. Delete! --Six of Six Talk Ω 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it is Saddam's last wish that we don't. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Janus VI colony render.jpg

Image:Janus VI colony render.jpg

This image is a duplicate of the existing Image:Janus VI colony.jpg, and at the time of this post is also orphaned. In addition, this image is taken from, rather than being a screencap, which probably makes it a copyvio. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(edited) It's not orphaned as I just updated the The Devil in the Dark page -- you have to account for some time in editing. ;) I didn't replace the existing one so as not to overwrite someone's work, as a courtesy (hence the "duplicate"), but the new image shows a bit more and in better detail. ... There are other images on this site from, is this a problem? Screen captures are arguably a copyright violation UNLESS you consider it "fair use" practice in discussing the work. I would hope Paramount wouldn't deny MA fair use of their promotional images, as they generate publicity for their franchise. --Kojirovance 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) images are not necessarily meant to be promotional. In addition, look at the discussions above for how screencaps count as fair use, and other images, say from books or websites, do not. Screencaps are a very small portion (one frame out of tens of thousands). Those other images you pointed out were uploaded today, and probably need to be deleted as well. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. ;) Go ahead and revert The Devil in the Dark page, I'm not sure I have privileges to do that.--Kojirovance 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can revert edits. On the 'diff' screen, just hit the 'edit' button for the older revision. :) -- Sulfur 18:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the tip. --Kojirovance 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because 51% of Americans voted for it to get turfed. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorn starship renders

Image:New-front-1-540x287.jpg and Image:New-rear-1-540x287.jpg

These images were taken from, and therefore do not fall under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

questionOn what reasoning do you say they do not constitute "fair use"? They're no more or less so than any other screencap/render, are they not?Capt Christopher Donovan 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Screen-caps are 1/90000 of the product, and they don't deliver enough of the product that someone could skip buying the DVDs or watching the shows. These images from an article on are a much larger part of the product, the whole product. could argue, and they would be right, that are posting of these images would take traffic away from their site, and hurt it in a significant way. We would be using their own work against them. Same for magazines, or the image of the Enterprise-J from the calendar. --Bp 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a misconception that a single frame in a series of 88000 is free for fair use. its free for fair use because its free to air broadcast. for the purpose of copyright, websites are printed material, and don't fall under fair use, except for reviews. Free to air is fair use under the Beta-max ruling. --Six of Six Talk Ω 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Read Fair use#Amount and substantiality. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harper_&_Row,_Publishers,_Inc._v._Nation_Enters. and wikipedia:Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (both sited in that section) are examples of complete works and less than 400 characters out of a 400 page book. The full copy is fair use, and less than 1 1000th of the other was infringement. copyright, which has been quite slow to adapt, may see a single frame as a full work in and of itself (in fact, in motion picture's infancy, a single frame was a full work.) The fact that its free to air, and therefore posting a single frame does not represent a significant effect on their ability to profit from the works. Copying an image out of a magazine, and off a website, does. Its really not the amount in this case, its the origin. --Six of Six Talk Ω 12:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Also read the Biz Markie example. In the case of music (and by extrapolation other types of media), a significant, legal recognizable portion lifted is not considered "fair use." So claiming that one out of ten thousand frames is okay ignores other precedents. A frame of a unique starship rendering, captured and used, is not "fair use." But often, such a snip used for the purpose of commentary or review is supported. ... This is all theoretical, and until a a real world copyright or trademark lawyer weighs in, probably not reliable. Since Paramount hasn't clobbered MA yet, it likely won't happen. After the embarrassing Mattel and Paramount shenanigans of the early 90s, corporations have learned that some borderline fair use clipping often strengthens and supports their franchise, by providing valuable word-of-mouth advertising.

My two cents is that these images are not canon, are clearly not fully rendered and therefore not suitable for airing (or use as MA reference). They're production stills, and therefore a real world perspective item. -- Kojirovance 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
One can argue as to "Fair Use", which I'm not an expert on, but the CONTENT of the render, the Gorn ship, IS in fact, canon. That is what one class of Gorn starship looks like in the 23rd century. The model was not fully textured, etc, because it was only meant to be seen in "long shots".Capt Christopher Donovan 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

stsf1 & stsf2

Image:Stsf1.jpg and Image:Stsf2.jpg
The article these were uploaded for, Star Trek Simulation Forum, is a copyright violation and about to be deleted, so these images can be turfed as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I had to remind Shran to nominate this, so I guess that means I'm going to vote delete :-) --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 05:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)



An orphaned image. It has been for a while. We already have Image:Lily Sloane.jpg, taken from a screen cap of the character she played. In addition, this image is not cited, and may not even fall under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.