Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21

File:Matthew Parish photo grayscale.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File appears to be a promotional/publicity image, as evidenced by the fact that it is used on Fox News and a publicity website (Tineye) - highly highly unlikely that he took it himself, and even if he did, I doubt he would actually release this. If this was commons, I'd direct the poster to their OTRS queue for confirming permissions (or tag for no permission) but as far as I'm aware that doesn't exist on enwp, so I'm nominating it for deletion so that permission can be provided if it exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete Uploader was just banned for COI for a week due to being Parish, so I am heavily leaning towards the uploader being Parish. Found the source image at Gentium Law [1]. It is clearly one of a set of Gentium Law employee photos. Parish was the sole managing partner at Gentium Law, which is sufficient evidence that Parish could give it out under CC 4.0 license. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if he was Parish himself, that does not mean he owns the copyright. Many times professional photos like this are not "given" to the person/firm/corporation/etc that they are taken for - they are just given a license to use the images in promotional material. Without proof that the copyright is owned by Parish, it cannot be assumed he owns the copyright. The best way for the uploader to clarify that if it is the case is to email it to the Commons OTRS team with proof it's under a legitimate free license, then they can upload it on Commons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Berchanhimez: Now that I have access to the original photo to see the EXIF data, it appears the copyright is owned by Alexander Petrenko of [2]. I'm switching to delete. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given comment above about Petrenko (who a quick Google search shows to be a professional photographer in Geneva, where the subject is based, clear copyvio absent proof through OTRS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2021 (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:Xircon.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 2021 July 28. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xircon.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:WinningTeamnujsstet.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File has free license tags, but description says it's fair use. In the latter case, I don't see how this image would be too useful. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree it doesn't quite meet Wikipedia standards for fair use. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2021 (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:Parocket.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: convert to fair use. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of non-free software. Should either be deleted or changed to fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed to fair use and added rationale. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2021 (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:Vik-polo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work given that the author's and the uploader's names don't match. Description states the image is by Vik Olliver, but uploader's user page says their name is Plaas. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Photo is likely GFDL (sourced from RepRap), but it is by the author's own admission not their own work. Even if we fix the template, this image is unused and I honestly don't see a use. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2021 (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:Tobias Adrian.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus authorship claim/license. Uploader purports author to be "Tobias Adrian," but Adrian is the subject. Copyright initally vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject and does not transfer but through signed conveyance (see 17 U.S.C. § 204). Indeed, EXIF credit "Author Kim Haughton" and "Copyright holder ©IMF" (Haughton is a photo editor at International Monetary Fund) and the permission from whom we would need WP:VRT permission. Note also the the uploader has been warned about copyright issues related to this subject and has many revdeletions due to the same. This upload follows the deletion of this user's blatant attempt to Flickrwash an image of this subject - see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tobias Adrian.png. Quack. Эlcobbola _talk 01:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I received it by email from Tobias Adrian today. I'll let him know that according to somebody at wikipedia he does not own the photo. Same as the previous photo that I received from him. I'm sure he will find this rather tiresome, as do I. Hanjaf1 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's pretty discouraging. This is literally the first page that I have created on the wiki. I asked for help with the previous photo submission and none was forthcoming. All I have received is accusations of bad faith, along with the various protocol violations that I have been charged with. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanjaf1: Almost nobody gets this process right the first time. Uploading a photo that sticks is literally one of the most difficult things to do on this platform. Hopefully you understand why Wikipedia can not accept this. The evidence appears to support that Adrian does not own the photo, but rather the IMF. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephanthunter: Your advice was helpful. Hanjaf1 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two problems: 1) Permission was not received directly by OTRS team, but instead by the uploader, and 2) Permission was not given by the correct copyright holder (IMF), but was instead given by the photo subject. I've directed user to follow correct OTRS procedures (directing email to wikimedia) for future uploads. This type of mistake is common. It is unlikely to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the photo copyright. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2021 (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:Folder Hexagonal Icon.svg

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 2021 July 28. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Folder Hexagonal Icon.svg (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:Ak madhavan pic.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work given low resolution (under 2018 standards). Also not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2021 (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:Alex Alben campaign.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of free license at the now-defunct website. [3] Also not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Curlydog (talk · contribs) claims on Commons that he is Alex Alben himself and that he owns all the photos. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2021 (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:Air Coolers-01.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: keep. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality suggests image is a scanned from somewhere. No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator did not provide any evidence of infringement. Evidence uploader is the copyright holder, as the uploader's username matches high-level employee of an aircoil manufacturer that publishes matching illustrations. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that the uploader's username appears to be a reference to Andrew Statham. Keep as nominator per WP:AGF. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2021 (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:Alcool Di VertigoSP.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: keep. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File is tagged as missing evidence of permission. However, it is likely the uploader's own work for two reasons:

Both the credited author and the uploader's username are variations of "Don Bertone." The file name of the source also contains the string "alcool_di_vertigo_by_DonBertone"
The linked source file has a lower resolution than this one. This suggests the upload to Wikipedia is more likely to be the original version

Ixfd64 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, deviantart.com/donbertone goes to the exact same user page as deviantart.com/mehranmo. They are two aliases for the same person. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2021 (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:"Wilson-Raybould scandal" google search result showing only 3,400 results.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted webpage. Not sure if the photo results would fall under de minimis. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete @Ixfd64: Brought this up for discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. De minimus doesn't apply if the image is itself the subject of critique, but generally you can't have fair use files on talk pages? I am sure there is some precedent here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete after feedback. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being incorrectly licensed. It's not just the photos that are likely protected in this case, but also the search listings as well per c:COM:SCREENSHOTS. Moreover, it would make no sense to convert this to non-free content since non-free content is only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9 (see also WP:TPG#Non-free images); so, there's really not much to discuss here unless the argument is that the screenshot isn't copyrighted content (which I would disagree with). My feeling is that this probably should've been just tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F9. It was probably uploaded in good faith by the uploader, but its licensing is still nonetheless (at least in my opinion) incorrect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2021 (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:Altarcard.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah that website is selling prints. It's possible that they are simply reprinting a public domain image, but I don't know that for a fact. They could just as well have created it from scratch and own the copyright. I've replaced this image with a WP:FREER image from commons (File:Canon_d'autel.jpg) at the Altar cards article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (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:American University of Vietnam - Administrative Building.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Only for use from APU Educational Development and its subsidiaries" conflicts with free licenses. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable concept for a building. Unused. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (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/2021 July 21

Contents

July 21

File:Matthew Parish photo grayscale.jpg

File:Xircon.png

File:WinningTeamnujsstet.jpg

File:Parocket.jpg

File:Vik-polo.jpg

File:Tobias Adrian.JPG

File:Folder Hexagonal Icon.svg

File:Ak madhavan pic.jpg

File:Alex Alben campaign.jpg

File:Air Coolers-01.jpg

File:Alcool Di VertigoSP.jpg

File:"Wilson-Raybould scandal" google search result showing only 3,400 results.png

File:Altarcard.jpg

File:American University of Vietnam - Administrative Building.jpg

Navigation menu

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 21

July 21

Navigation menu

Search