Forum:"Into Darkness" images from bootleg recording

There are a few images starting to be posted that are clearly from bootleg recordings of, such as File:Medical bay nurse uniform ST09.jpg and File:Section31 uniform2.jpg, and possibly File:Navi.jpg. Could an admin please weigh in on what should be done with them?

Also, what's the policy with using promotional stills as image sources? Seems like there's a bunch of those being used currently. - Aatrek  00:27, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted the nurse uniform image purely on quality grounds; the Section 31 one seems barely passable on quality. I'm not sure if they are bootleg images or not. 31dot (talk) 00:48, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * We already request that images are properly cited. At the moment, that means images would need to be sourced as coming from a trailer. If they aren't, then there's something wrong and the image be removed. We shouldn't allow images that are clearly from illegal sources. Whether the images mentioned here are valid or not, I don't know. Could they be from any of the trailers or officially published segments? --Cid Highwind (talk) 10:18, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding promotional stills, I believe we allowed those in the past, unless they show a scene that clearly wasn't in the movie that way. In any case, those should be replaced with actual screenshots if those become available. --Cid Highwind (talk) 10:20, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't why that image is called Navi, it should be renamed Darwin since that is the character's name. The low-res, high quality image is from TrekMovie. --Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Aatrek, where's this one from: File:Khan shower.jpg? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:40, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Images from trailers are fine, the first image I uploaded is actually from the last film's trailer (and flipped "back" so Sulu is facing the correct way), as are images that were officially released some other way, but I think it's up to the uploader to provide the source if the image is suspect. Suspect images should be tagged for deletion or summarily deleted as if they didn't have copyright info. - 18:37, May 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can the Nolan North image from that site be added as well?--Spock78 (talk) 20:13, June 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the Nolan North and seated officers pictures from that same site. Please do not remove them unless you find a higher quality picture in the future. I agree that the Section 31 USS Vengeance officer is average quality but if someone wants to upload it for now, let them please until there's something better to use.


 * And stop deleting pictures without consent or admin's permission!--Spock78 (talk) 05:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the images I keep trying to add but keep being removed:
 * --Spock78 (talk) 05:57, June 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I am an admin. Second, removing images from articles because they don't comply with copyright law isn't deleting them, that happens later if the correct info isn't added. Third, try and use one page for a topic in the future instead of several, it reduces redundancy. - 05:59, June 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, what does it matter? I was going to ask what was wrong with the Nolan North image and provided info on where it was obtained and you just straight up deleted it prior to saying what information was missing.
 * Please tell me what needs to be added. A lot of the hash-tags aren't working either.--Spock78 (talk) 06:06, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I see you renamed it but I don't know why you didn't bring it up in discussion prior to doing that.--Spock78 (talk) 06:08, June 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Renaming an image to bring it in line with the naming conventions doesn't require a discussion, and there is already a discussion about the required information on your talk page. I am doing other things than this right now. - 06:16, June 15, 2013 (UTC)