Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 27

< September 26	September 28 >

September 27

File:Poly.pov

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: relisted on 2018 October 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poly.pov (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Ciel brand water by Coca Cola.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: Relicense to mixed user license/PD-USOnly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TOO refferal, over packaging artwork. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a beverage in an article about the beverage.
This is common practice.
See: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquarius_Bottle.jpg
There are page issues from 2010 you could have worked on.
User:Balintawak —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Image use policy
If the file is tagged as freely licensed but you have reasons to suspect this tagging is false: list the file under files for discussion, by adding the ffd template on the file and then adding a listing to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion pages following the instructions in the tag. Same if you think it should be deleted for some other reason: list the file under files for discussion, by adding the ffd template on the file and then adding a listing to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion pages following the instructions in the tag. This process may be used for images that are low quality, obsolete, unencyclopedic, likely to remain unused, or whose use under the non-free content rules is disputed.
Balintawak (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as derivative of PD-ineligible-USonly. The logo is simple enough to be below TOO in USA. The bottle is a utilitarian object. Can be converted to full PD if someone digs up information on TOO in Mexico, provided that it's the source country. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bouteille_de_Coca-Cola_d'un_litre_cinq_001.jpg for comparison. --Balintawak (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Balintawak: Please see c:COM:PACKAGING for more of an explanation as to why ShakespeareFan00 probably nominated this file for discussion. Please also see WP:OTHERIMAGE as to trying to compare one image with another when it comes to discussions like this. For sure, there are other images like this found on Commons, but perhaps the logos used on the packaging have been determined to be ineligible for copyright protection for one reason or another; it’s also possible that the other file should actually be deleted from Commons or Wikipedia. It’s better to focus on the specifics of the file being discussed. There’s also no need to copy and paste full paragraphs of Wikipedia policy into these discussions; just providing a link to the relevant page or section is almost always sufficient. Finally, if the article in question has had problems for ten years, then you could fix these problems as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Finnusertop. The logo seems simple enough per c:COM:TOO#United States to be at least {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} for local use on English Wikipedia, even if it’s by chance too complex to be PD for Mexico. I suggest also adding {{Trademark}} to the file’s page if the consensus is to keep. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2018 (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:Bible Hill Crest.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: relisted on 2018 October 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bible Hill Crest.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Vignelli NYC Subway map 2008.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: relisted on 2018 October 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vignelli NYC Subway map 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Vignelli 1972.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:SKETCH ACTRESSES.jpeg

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also for consideration under this nomination -

Wikipedia is not a web host. As these images do not appear to have a use in any existing article(s) and are only being displayed on the uploading user's page, I believe they qualify for deletion under NOTWEBHOST. Strikerforce^Talk 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless satisfactory copyright permission provided. I don't believe the motive was bad: the editor appears to have intended to illustrate articles with no image, as in this version of Best Actress. However, the author, source, and permission are all given simply as "GOVINDA", which is wholly unsatisfactory; these may well be copyright violations. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No evidence of copyright violation - appears to be a sketch, likely something the uploader did. A better tactic may be to talk to the editor and help him fill in the gaps in the source info. As far as NOTWEBHOST, plenty of folks have pictures of themselves and families on their user page. It doesn't seem to be overly promotional, so what's the harm? This whole deletion seems kind of WP:BITEy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion on the copyright status, but these files don't violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. They are in use, and if you have a problem with how they are used on the user page, WP:MfD is that way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 27 September 2018 (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:Domingo Pilarte, UFC Fighter.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Screenshot from a broadcast/livestream is not necessarily own work as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the User name of the uploader clearly indicates a direct link with the subject of the photo, It was my understanding that sports footage is generally owned by the broadcaster/live-streamer. If the uploader does have the rights to the footage, it wasn't clear on the file description page.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of permission. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:57, 27 September 2018 (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:ItalianImmigrants.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is own work, but the sculpture is by an artist who only died this year, When was it first installed/ unveiled, so I know if these needs to be a photo of art license tag (non-free use). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under consideration of Freedom of Panorama. If the statue were in, say, Germany, the law there holds that the photographer can license their work without regard to the rights of the sculptor (as best I understand it). If this were a building in the U.S., the photographer could license it without regard to the rights of the architect or builder. But as a work of art on public view in the U.S., a photograph of it is a derivative work and for use here would need a fair-use justification unless the sculptor's estate (or whoever now owns the copyright) agrees to a release. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I understanding correctly perc:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States that if this status was erected before 1978 without a copyright notice, then the picture is in the public domain? Because best I can tell this statue was erected in 1972. I'm guessing there's not an accompanying copyright notice? But I live in the area and can check if folks feel that's necessary (if I'm misunderstanding the freedom of panorama rules, then the point is moot and I won't bother making the hike). Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is not public domain, it is copyright by the photographer. But as the statue or sculpture was erected between 1923 and 1978, if without a copyright notice, then it does appear that the photo would escape the derivative work restriction. So I guess a check is needed or an inquiry to the Hill 2000 Organization to determine if they've restricted photography before 1978. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per jmcgnh unless new evidence surfaces. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:59, 27 September 2018 (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.

Non-free images in Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition

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 -FASTILY 05:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free files being used in Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition all licensed as {{Non-free historic image}}. While the expedition itself might be historic, I'm not sure if each and everyone of these photos should be considered as such per WP:ITSHISTORIC. There's no sourced critical commentary of any of these photos per se anywhere in the article, so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is questionable. Moreover, all the photos are various pictures of the vehicles used in the expedition, so not all of them seem to be needed per WP:NFCC#3a. While it might be possible to justify File:1955OverlandKit.jpeg (since it shows not only the vehicles, but also some team members and their gear) and maybe possibly one of the other photos of just the vehicles, I can't see anyway to justify the non-free use of all six. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2018 (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:Kastu Ingredients.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referral to FFD as these are clearly packaging artwork. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (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:Patuxay.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Laos, Was this building is built within the timeframe for it to still be in copyright with respect to the architecture? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2018 (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:Culturehall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of Panorama in Laos, Is the building recent enough that there would be copyright in the architecture still? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2018 (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:Viangchanbank.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Laos, this is a modern building, is it recent enough (or unique)enough that copyright would apply in the architecture? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2018 (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:Reproduction of a Soviet wartime poster.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama in Russia doesn't necessarily cover poster-art. Whose the poster artist? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (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:Resource Centre, Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology (Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India - 19 Feb 2006).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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is properly licensed however, the version dated 08:06, 30 January 2016 was a file overwrite taken from a blog that does not indicate any sort of free license and as such is a copyvio and should be removed. Whpq (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2018 (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:Fleetwood Mac 1990.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this--there are plenty of free media of Fleetwood Mac. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 27 September 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 27

Contents

September 27

File:Poly.pov

File:Ciel brand water by Coca Cola.jpg

File:Bible Hill Crest.png

File:Vignelli NYC Subway map 2008.jpg

File:SKETCH ACTRESSES.jpeg

File:Domingo Pilarte, UFC Fighter.jpg

File:ItalianImmigrants.JPG

Non-free images in Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition

File:Kastu Ingredients.jpg

File:Patuxay.JPG

File:Culturehall.JPG

File:Viangchanbank.JPG

File:Reproduction of a Soviet wartime poster.jpg

File:Resource Centre, Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology (Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India - 19 Feb 2006).jpg

File:Fleetwood Mac 1990.JPG

Navigation menu

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 27

September 27

Non-free images in Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition

Navigation menu

Search