Wikipedia:Files for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)
XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 42 59 137 238
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 18 19
AfD 0 0 0 59 59

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list hereEdit

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2020 October 29}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2020 October 29}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2020 October 29}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1927, not 1921.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participationEdit

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussionsEdit

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussionsEdit

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

October 21

File:Sandeep Maheshwari Signature.png

[edit]

File:Sandeep Maheshwari Signature.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jiko.biswas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

signature of a (notable?) person from India, dubious own-work claim. Since Indian law is based on Common law, this may not be eligible for PD-signature FASTILY 05:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

October 17

NSYNC single covers

[edit]

File:Iwantyoubacknsyncgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Tearinupmyheartgermancd.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Itsgonnabemelimited.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

additional cover arts added nominated by George Ho (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 22:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Iwantyoubacknsync.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bouncehoper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Tearinupmyheart.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bouncehoper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5. As a brief history, these album covers were listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 27#NSYNC single covers which ended with all three participants agreeing to keep, but in the meantime were deleted based on the original WP:CSD#F7 speedy tag. King of ♠ 08:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on the suggestion made by George Ho at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5, is it possible to add the remaining single covers from each of the articles if there is consensus to delete these files in this discussion? This will allow each single cover to be given a fair chance by the community to determine which cover will remain on each article and reduce potential bias of these files in particular if both files in each article do not meet the criterion of WP:NFCC#8. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If using two images violate "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria, then probably use the earliest artworks for both "I Want You Back (NSYNC song)" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" since those songs were successful back in, respectively, 1996–97 and 1997 right before their 1998 (re-)successes. Otherwise, I don't see the problem of using two images in each of these articles. Having two images would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary only if one image isn't enough for most readers.

    Furthermore, using both the US and international images of It's Gonna Be Me would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently. It should also help US readers recognize one cover and international readers recognize the other. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @George Ho: What do you mean when you say that two images "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" and "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently"? ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase or clarify the "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" part. Two images of "I Want You Back" look different obviously; maybe they look essentially similar. Same for "Tearin' Up My Heart". If there is more to explain, then I would say first that single releases of those NYSNC songs must have been periodic(al). Furthermore, the US customers weren't able to receive the retail physical release of "I Want You Back" until 1998. In other words, the US success occurred in 1998; the song didn't have a chance there, despite earlier European success. Moreover, the artwork used for the 1996 release wasn't used for the later 1998 US release. Well, Europeans have received various artworks in their retail stores at the time of various periodic releases. Secondly, NYSNC band members are US-born, yet the band was already the international sensation at their time before they made their chances in the US.

    In short, I think most US readers wouldn't recognize the 1996 release of "I Want You Back" but instead the 1998 (re-)release, while overseas readers may recognize one of artworks publicly released prior to 1998 re-release, which they would also recognize.

    As for "Tearin' Up My Heart", the Europeans would recognize one (the earliest) or two artworks (that and the 1998 re-release); the US customers didn't receive a retail physical release. The 1998 artwork is used for the US promo but also recognized by European customers who bought the 1998 re-release. The Europeans would also recognize the earlier 1997 release, which was successful in Europe, a year before "Tearin' Up My Heart" arrived in US radio stations.

    Rephrasing/Clarifying the "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently" part, the US readers would recognize more the animated artwork used for the US limited edition release of "It's Gonna Be Me", while the overseas readers would recognize the live-action artwork more, which was part of the overseas retail physical release. I don't think additional info about the artworks is necessary in order to further justify the usage of the images, is it? I don't think a reader would recognize one or the other artwork without using the two simultaneously, even with captions, some of which were I've seen removed without explanation. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 01:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all per NFCC3a (multiple non-free files used where one would suffice) and NFCC8 (omitting the images would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article). Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Stifle: Deleting every file will leave each article with no cover in the infobox. As I asked above, which of the two covers for each song listed should solely remain in use based on the information provided in the article and in this discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The first three. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    In other words, Stifle, for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart", the cover arts of the 1998 re-releases of those singles should be used instead of the earlier releases, right? Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all My first choice would be to delete both album covers in each article, as the album covers are not the subject of critical commentary reflected in referenced prose (which is the standard for NFCC #8). There are plenty of non-free album covers that do pass that standard, but that's because they are discussed in the article in a non-trival way. These aren't - it's purely decorative. However, should prose materialize, I would still say keep only one cover per article, as having several fails NFCC #3. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Based on Template:Infobox song#cover recommending an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song, one of the covers in each article should remain. NFCC #3a specifically applies to additional non-free files added, otherwise most songs on Wikipedia would not contain any artwork in the infobox. Which covers would you preferably choose to keep based on the other comments in the discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The instruction for the parameter doesn't say at least one should be kept. That's intended for those wanting to add an image into the parameter. I don't think The Squirrel Conspiracy was wrong to cite NFCC#8 to vote deletion for all of those cover arts, i.e. assuming that songs can be well understood without the cover arts. Well, others' opinions differ from those of the user. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete each alternative cover. Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion. Each song was first released in territories outside of NSYNC's native U.S. with a particular cover and each single found success in those markets. They were then released domestically with a different cover, but this time in the group's home country. The argument to justify both covers relies on the different recognizability between the audiences because of the differing covers, and said justification is likely amplified by the existence of {{Extra album cover}}. However, this still fails to address WP:NFCC to any degree. Just because it exists doesn't mean its inclusion is justifiable under policy: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Contrary to the comment at DRV that suggested WP:NFC just happens to be a guideline with the implication that it operates separately from WP:NFCC—one of several comments at that discussion which really showed how incredibly out of touch some users are in regards to NFCC—it is more accurately a supplemental page. It outlines, as miniminally as possible, the degree of understanding of how NFCC is applied and has been applied over time to non-free media files. It is almost never acceptable to use a non-free image of a living person in the subject's biography article, for example. NFCC does not directly state this, NFC does. This is why I deleted the alternate covers to begin with under speedy deletion, because they are textbook violations as highlighted by NFC. There are definitely other examples which are significantly less clear which I have declined speedy deletions to, like photos of cast members of a reality show (see this discussion as an example).
A bit of a tangent, but let's get back on track. If we look outside of albums about articles, I think this concept can be better understood. Take Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, for example. An entire generation in the U.S. did not grow up with the book cover displayed in the article, or the title for that matter. In fact, the release history suggests an array of covers for this single book. Notice how there isn't a single extraneous cover in the article? That is because it is not justified by policy. The text alone explains it all, and the readers' understanding of the article is not detrimented in any way. The same goes for films—WALL-E displays one of the many theatrical posters designed for the film, and that's not yet touching on the different covers for the DVD releases. Same with games—Pokémon Red and Blue has three versions of the same game, with slight variations between their gameplay, but only the Red version cover art is displayed. Policy does not justify the other two. Aside from the "this second cover features this Pokémon, and the third one an even different Pokémon" description, there is no critlcally sourced commentary about the other two covers themselves. Regarding the contextual significance criterion WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS elaborates that "only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". Album articles are no different. The use of additional non-free items in the same article requires a higher burden of justification under policy than the main item displayed. Any additional cover art must be subject to sourced critically discussion. If it not, it inherently fails to meet all ten NFCC criteria to justify its inclusion. ƏXPLICIT 09:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, then how do you explain the consensus to "keep" cover arts of "I Should Be So Lucky" (FFD) and "no consensus" to delete one of cover arts of "Hanging on the Telephone" (FFD)? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: You will need to ask the closing admins Fastily and Jo-Jo Eumerus to explain why the discussions resulted in keep. Interestingly, Finnusertop noted Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover in both discussions, which is what I also brought up at DRV for the exact opposite reason; it does not cite a discussion to verify such a consensus exists for alternate covers. I did some digging and found that the phrase was added here in October 2012 by Jheald. The original wording read: "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, an alternative or regional non-free cover image may be used only if the image is discussed by critical commentary within the article it is used in (see WP:NFCI)." This reflects exactly what I've been arguing the entire time. The way it reads today is a result of Jheald altering the statement citing their own comment in a discussion at WT:NFC. The discussion referenced was likely Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#Multiple non-free images in an article. Both Masem and Hammersoft noted inconsistencies in the application of policy, which persists after eight years—from the discussion at least, the issue itself has likely persisted longer. Ultimately, it is clear that there was no discussion, let alone consensus, for Jheald's aforementioned amendment to the template's documentation page which single-handedly overrided NFCC.
It is very troublesome to find that such an edit with long-lasting ramifications just slipped through the cracks. I am simply interpreting NFCC how it has been applied through the consensus of past discussions, but it is quite evident that the users on the other side of the spectrum have experienced something completely different, and I can see why. I really do think a formal RFC is merited at this point, especially considering my points above regarding other mediums of entertainment. Regardless, it should be handled following the closure of this discussion. I think we should get an initial discussion regarding the matter at WT:NFCC to get out ideas and understandings in order and limit the derailment of the deletion discussion concerning these particular files. ƏXPLICIT 11:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote in 2012. First the edit summary,

Per my comment in current discussion at WT:NFC, The previous statement did not reflect WP:NFCI, nor past discussions at WT:NFC, nor decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted current practise.

-- all of which is precisely true.
Simultaneously to making the change at Template:Infobox album I flagged up the change I was making at WT:NFC (archive link), the relevant policy board for policy in this area , which at the time was very active and lively, making clear exactly what the change was and why I was making it. This was not a change made on the quiet in some corner under the radar. I presented the changed text in detail on the relevant policy board and invited discussion. Nobody objected, nobody disputed it, nobody changed it or re-edited it or reverted it, and the text has remained in place.
But this lack of challenge is perhaps not surprising, because the text I added relected the consensus, already discussed several times at WT:NFC, based on earlier discussions and the balance of decisions at WP:FFD that Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
As I wrote then, and is still relevant today:

This essentially reflects the point, that if we consider an album cover important to show, as informing the reader's understanding of how the album was branded and marketed and made into an identifiable object, so passing NFCC #8, that rationale also applies to an alt cover, if the one item cannot convey equivalent significant information (NFCC #3a) -- i.e. if the alt cover is also strongly associated with the album, and is very different to what the reader would learn from the first cover.

It is true that Masem has consistently opposed that analysis of NFCC #8 and cover art, and sought to present cover art here as a customary exception to NFCC #8, rather than a working-out of it; but when he pushed it to an RfC, he found that that his was not the view of the community. I believe that the fact that neither what I wrote at WT:NFC nor the edit that I made to the template doc was challenged probably indicates that he accepted that what I had written probably did reflect the consensus.
As for Uniplex's text, added a year previously, it was not the original text [1], did not appear to have been discussed, and as I noted at WT:NFC did not reflect something WP:NFCI#1 mandates, did not reflect the run of previous discussion at WT:NFC, nor the run of decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted practice.
If User:Explicit believes that policy or its consensus understanding has changed since 2012, I would be grateful if they could point to the discussion/s at WT:NFC where this change in consensus understanding was established.
It is also unhelpful to mis-state NFCC#8 as being about "readers' understanding of the article". What the NFCC specifically NFCC#8 identifies as the relevant consideration is "readers' understanding of the article topic". I trust User:Explicit appreciates the difference. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The outcomes of deletion discussions like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 6#File:"Rain" by Madonna - UK single cover.jpeg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 27#File:KylieJeNeSaisPasPourquoiCover.png, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 7#File:Having a Rave Up Canadian album cover.jpg (transparency: I was the deleting admin in this case) prove otherwise. It is not as consistent as you make it out to be. By chance, do you have a link to the RFC you've cited in your response?
As mentioned above, I do agree that this issue needs a centralized discussion in order to get a more definitive answer to the age-old question. Both sides of this debate interpret NFCC differently based on their experiences dealing with alternate covers, which have continued to provide contradictory results for more than a decade. I think we can both agree going back and forth will not make the other budge. I do plan to initiate a discussion at WT:NFC once this concludes, and am interested in facilitating productive discussion between the two sides. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You said, "Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion." Besides how you interpret NFCC, why else would you favor keeping, i.e. choosing as main images, the 1998 re-release cover arts of the two singles and the live-action (non‑US) artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me", content-wise? George Ho (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My statement reflects my non-interest in which of the two covers is decided upon. Some users will prefer the original, and others the re-release. Stefan2 brought up an interesting point regarding book covers at the "Rain" UK cover discussion I linked in response to Jheald above, and which has furthered my curiosity in the disparities between MOS:NOVELS#Images and the approach taken in album articles. Perhaps this is worth considering should this discussion result in the deletion of one of the covers for these articles. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The cases you mentioned are years ago. The more recent example should be this FFD discussion about single releases of "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby". Well, my rationale was lengthier and in paragraphs; there were no responses. Regardless, the result was deleting two images of different single releases of the song. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed that both covers on the band's debut album also have the same issue, given that the alternate international cover is constantly re-uploaded due to multiple WP:CSD#F7 tags. Should the files also be included here or is it better for them to be discussed separately? In response to Jheald and Explicit, I agree with the prospect that community consensus at WT:NFCC and WT:NFC would hopefully rectify any future incidents. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
They should not be added to this particular nomination. I think it would be best to hold off on further nominations for now. Once this debate is resolved one way or the other, I would like to proceed to a broader discussion, as I mentioned above. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion has stagnated for months, but hopefully, the discussion can be revived enough to make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One month now...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Fair use claims appear valid to me. Aasim 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Uploader comment: Going through each Harry Potter book article and talk page discussions about the cover art as suggested by User:Explicit, there seems to be some ambiguity about which artwork to include on the infobox of each article. Based on the release history section of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I am hesitant on listing every cover art with an ambiguous caption such as (Re-issue with new cover), which fails WP:TECHNICAL since no description about the artwork is used in a similar style as MOS:ALT. In regards to which image to include, both covers for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" have been used interchangeably worldwide; there are also covers used in the UK and Australia that are not included in the article per WP:UNDUE. The discussion to decisively choose one will most likely end with neither side willing to budge, which would only leave both covers remaining as a compromise. The infobox image of Pokémon Red and Blue as of this version also suggests that the ambiguous WP:NFC policies have affected several articles. The debate has been going for long enough that we should gain community consensus at WT:NFC and WT:NFCC to establish firmer guidelines specifically for song and album covers to avoid loopholes exploiting Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover and WP:WAX. Adding actively involved editors for consensus @Jheald and George Ho. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete one of the sets of three. I can see a point for keeping either one (German as the first, American as where the band is from). I do not see under the NFCC that it is in fact necessary for more than one image on each song's article. I would tend toward keeping the American release copies. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: Technically, "Tearin' Up My Heart" wasn't commercially released as a single in the US. Somehow, someone mistakenly believed that the single was commercially released in North America, so I corrected the wrong assumption. But I see your point about deleting the early German artworks. Oh, the standard live-action artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me" is the non-US, overseas release, while the US edition uses the animated artwork. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

October 16

File:Heil dir im Siegerkranz.ogg

[edit]

File:Heil dir im Siegerkranz.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Invinciblewalnut (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly copyrighted/non-free. The song itself appears out of copyright (PD-old), but the performers/orchestra still own the copyright on their rendition. Missing verifiable source, so I can't even lookup who the performing band/orchestra was. FASTILY 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 12

File:Collège de France logo.svg

[edit]

File:Collège de France logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If this coat of arms was present in the letter patent that created the establishment in 1699, then it's not copyrighted. Has someone access to the patent to verify? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All I've been able to find through a quick search is one page of text from the letters patent. It's likely that the College has a copy, though, so perhaps we need to verify it with them, either online or through some other means of contact, or do some more in-depth searching. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 11

Should I Stay or Should I Go single covers

[edit]

File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Exciter106 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Should I Stay or Should I Go by The Clash 1991 rerelease.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I uploaded the cover art of the 1991 re-release as intended replacement of the 1982 US limited ed. sleeve (showing Ronald Reagan on the cover). However, my PROD tag on the US sleeve was contested, citing that original release is more preferable than reissues.

I'll explain why the 1991 reissue cover art should be the sole lead image for Should I Stay or Should I Go. First, the 1980s US releases of the single performed modestly, if not less than modest, on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Second, there were other concurrent releases outside the US, such as the band's home country, the United Kingdom. Third, I have not yet found one reliable source connecting Reagan and the song, which would have justified using the US ltd ed. sleeve more. (Vulture article mentions Reagan but not in the section about the song, which is ranked #19.) Fourth, the double A-sided release shows the other song "Straight to Hell" on the front cover and puts "Should I Stay or Should I Go" as part of the tracklist on the back cover; strangely, "Straight to Hell" is labelled the AA-side track, while the other is labelled A-side track. Neither image of that double A-sided release would adequately match the critical commentary contained within the article. The picture disc edition of the double A-sided release would not be suitable either; the song title above a picture of the band in one vinyl flip side would be harder to see in small size.

Fifth, the Levi's TV/radio(?) commercial helped the song receive greater attention from TV viewers and probably radio listeners, leading to the song's re-release and then success in 1991. I have worked on the article on the "Draft:" namespace primarily to emphasize and weigh more on the 1991 re-release. Sixth, I have used cover arts of the reissues of There She Goes (The La's song), Dreams (The Cranberries song), and Holding Back the Years, whose re-releases were much more successful than their initial single releases, though the more successful re-releases came one to two years after their own initial (less successful) releases. The greater example would be Etta James's recording of I Just Want to Make Love to You, which became a lot more successful in 1996 as the result of the Diet Coke commercial. I want to make it consistent with other articles that weighed more on more successful re-releases. If the examples aren't enough, how about It Must Have Been Love and Dolly Parton's version of I Will Always Love You? Well, each has sections about both original and re-releases (or re-recordings).

In short, if above is tl;dr for you, I will say that more weight should go for the 1991 re-release cover art mainly because it was much, much more successful in Europe (and New Zealand) than it performed modestly worldwide and the Levi's company, whose logo is shown on the cover, made the song more successful. Unless there's a reliable source proving explicit reference connecting the song to Reagan, I should favor the 1991 Levi's cover art and drop the 1982 Reagan one. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep both covers given that both were notable versions of the songs and each would have their own article. The first three reissue examples provided have re-releases that came out two years later than the original and the originals were not notable. The last two reissue examples are similar to this, in that they were farther apart in time and the originals were notable. I would not be opposed to the reissue having its own section and infobox and the last two reissue examples have. Aspects (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The releases of this song aren't "versions" but different single releases of the same recording. The 1991 re-release uses the same original 1982 studio recording. The US release in early 1980s was modest compared to the European/Oceania double A-side release. Also note that the quantity of the US picture sleeve must have been very limited since the US single release was branded as "Special Limited Edition". Alternatively, the 1983 US/Dutch single can be used as replacement of the Special Ltd Ed release, but the chart performances of the 1980s US releases were still modest at best. By the way, I've not seen you commented on "I Just Want to Make Love to You" yet. Well, I'm trying to find a better example to compare, but they aren't easy to find. Nevertheless, I can't use the original studio recordings and recorded live performances of other songs, like I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song), for comparison. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the second one per WP:NFCC#3a, multiple images being used where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Stifle, if you explained your additional reasons a little more further, that would be great. I've seen you cite just policy to delete one over the other in other discussions regarding cover arts but without sufficient explanation for your preference(s). I've explained my reasons that the 1982 US sleeve should be deleted and that the 1991 reissue cover art should be kept. How are my reasons not convincing enough for you? George Ho (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 00:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    The policy speaks for itself and does not need additional reasons. I don't really mind if you'd prefer to keep the other one, but they can't both stay. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (or, more aptly, "Stay"). With a little more citation and writeup about the relevance and historical significance of these 45 covers, they greatly add to this article. I'll happily take that on, once we come to consensus to keep the images being debated here. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stifle: How do you explain the "no consensus" decision, resulting in two images at "Hanging on the Telephone" kept by default? Furthermore, is policy enough to justify deletion in one case but not enough for that other case? Is FFD the right venue for which image (free or non-free) to prefer? George Ho (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. Each FFD is independent and there are no precedents. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I was just trying to make a comparison. That discussion was about keeping either one or two regional covers for the single release of that song and enforcing WP:NFCC#3a. This discussion also has the same purpose. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sourced commentary should be produced to support keeping multiple files here before a !vote for keep entered, not after. Given the discussion above, I would support keeping the later re-release's image. Delete File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 5

File:The Terror of War.jpg

[edit]

File:The Terror of War.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toohool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:TrangBang.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Second image nominated by George Ho (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @WGFinley with the reason "This is a copywritten image owned by the Associate Press, it is not Public Domain." FASTILY 04:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rehman, I contacted the office about this issue, they were able to retrieve the letter and get it in OTRS now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I was worried the letter would be lost after the deletion. Cheers, Rehman 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version, as uploader. The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, as shown on the file description page. A bare assertion of copyright ownership by the AP can't overcome that fact. Note there is also an open FfD discussion on another famous Vietnam War photo in the same situation. Toohool (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Where are you basing your statement that this doesn't have a copyright notice? This image is owned by The Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time, what is the basis of your claim this didn't have a copyright notice? --WGFinley (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@WGFinley: It's based on looking at the newspapers where the photo was published. The file description page includes links to a sampling of newspapers where the image was published with no copyright notice at all. Out of a couple dozen newspapers I found where the photo was published, not a single one had a copyright notice for the photo. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain. Were that true, you using it on WP would make it instantly PD, that's not the case. Nick Ut worked for AP for 51 years, they clearly own this image. https://apnews.com/1bc4725ece764fcab754a99b030f0397 --WGFinley (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Copyright notice was required for works published in the U.S. before 1989, and the failure to include one generally placed a work in the public domain. That is why we have a template for this situation, {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Toohool (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If a license agreement calls for the licensee to include notice, but the licensee fails to do that, that has no effect on copyright status. 17 USC 405(a)(3). We have the template for the situation where, in fact, the notice requirement wasn't met -- not for where Toohool concludes via his naive investigation that it wasn't met.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and the situation's beginning to get serious. There's an enormous body of statute, regulation, and case law on this kind of stuff, and you're running around claiming PD for scores of famous images based on a summary table you saw in some pamphlet. You really think you've made this penetrating analysis everyone else missed? The word sophomoric comes to mind. EEng 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: As I've asked you already, please dial down the confrontational tone. What basis do you have to believe that the notice requirement was met for this image? You are correct that publishing a work without notice in violation of an agreement that explicitly requires notice is an unauthorized publication and therefore does not put the work into the public domain. However, what evidence is there that AP's agreements with its members required them to place a copyright notice on all photos in general, or on this photo in particular? In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. Look at any newspaper from the era and you will probably find every AP image to be lacking a copyright notice. In the very rare instances where they distributed copyrighted photos, most papers did attach a copyright notice to the photo (as in the example of the Jack Ruby photo), which suggests that they required copyright notices to be attached only to certain photos, and makes it very easy to draw the dividing line between those photos that were copyrighted and those that were not. Toohool (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You stated that publication by newspapers without notice necessarily kills the copyright, and now you admit that's not true; you seem to just make stuff up as you go along. I don't need to show what was in AP's licenses, or anything else. You need to show the work is PD, and if that means showing what was or wasn't in various licenses, I guess you'll need to do that. You also seem to think that a copyright notice must appear immediately adjacent to the photo, and that's not true either; in fact, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what form an appropriate notice for an AP photo would take.
As the LC points out [4] many wire service images weren't copyrighted, but "determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous." But here at wp (and Commons) we don't take such "calculated risks". (There are some exceptions, as with e.g. movie studio publicity stills, which were commonly intentionally placed in PD from the very beginning to encourage their wide publication, and we allow ourselves to make that assumption. But that's a very special situation.) So we can't use your speculations about a "dividing line"; we need convincing evidence that the work is PD. EEng 03:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain, because there are exceptions, such as unauthorized publication. You're the one who's brought up that possibility, with no evidence, aka "making stuff up". You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end, and that the AP never did anything about it. It's a pretty extraordinary theory that you should have some evidence for. If we follow your argument, we'll have to delete every {{PD-US-no-notice}} image (about 1300 on enwp and 250,000 on Commons), because it's virtually impossible to prove the nonexistence of a contract with such a clause. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I stated that failure to include a notice generally put a work into the public domain – That's what you're saying now. Before that, when another editor said "Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain", you said "Yes it does", which isn't true. And before that you wrote The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, which isn't true. And before either of those, on the file description page [5] you wrote The photo was published simultaneously in many newspapers, many of which had no copyright notice at all (neither for the photo in particular, nor for the newspaper as a whole). Copyright was therefore forfeited ..., which also isn't true. Like I said, you're just making it up as you go along.
  • You're essentially positing that every newspaper in North America was violating the AP's agreements every day for decades on end – I'm not positing anything. I'm just showing that, over and over, you make statements about how copyright works which turn out to be false.
By the way, can you please address the point I raised earlier about the acceptable form and location of notice for a wire-service photo? EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Instead of just repeatedly saying "that's not true", and trying to wikilawyer to prove that I've said something incorrect, how about making an actual argument to rebut the evidence I've put forward that shows the photo was published without notice. Like, point to some authority that substantively contradicts what I'm saying, or maybe show us even one example of where the photo was published *with* proper notice on its initial publication? Or, instead of assuming that I don't know what a copyright notice looks like, give us an example of what a notice might look like that you think would be easily overlooked. So far, the only thing of substance you've said in this discussion is that the copyright wasn't forfeited if the AP's license agreement required copyright notice, so why won't you explain how that could plausibly be the case? Toohool (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You're the one saying the notices are missing, yet you refuse to explain what you thought you were looking for when checking for one. I actually don't know all the forms and locations acceptable in a situation like this, but what's clear is that you don't either (or, at least, if you do know you don't want to say) so your statement that notice was missing is hard to credit. And you're the one saying that a missing notice means PD, even though that's clearly not true (e.g. [6] says "Images without a copyright notice may still be under copyright"). Nothing else is needed to show that your reasoning is faulty. EEng 06:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The notice requirements for pre-1978 works are outlined in Appendix A of chapter 2100 of the Compendium of Copyright Practices. Per Part 4.2.1, the notice must include the terms "Copyright" or "Copr." or the copyright symbol (or a misspelling or close variant of one of those). It also has to identify the claimant, but that's moot in this case, because no notice satisfying even the first requirement was found. The location of the notice is specified in part 4.3.3: For a single-page contribution to a periodical, notice must be placed "anywhere on" the contribution. One might reasonably interpret this as meaning on or immediately adjacent to the photo, or in the caption, but I also looked everywhere else on the page.
Of course I don't believe that lack of notice absolutely places the photo in the PD. We have discussed exceptions to that rule in this very thread and elsewhere. The source you're quoting is simply pointing out that you can't take a random image off of the web, or off of a paper you find on the ground, and assume that it's public domain because there's no copyright notice. It could be an unauthorized publication, or a limited publication, or an unpublished work. It could be that the notice was omitted from only a few copies because of a manufacturing defect or the like. It could be that the copyright notice was removed by a third party after purchase. If you have a theory of some exception that applies in this case, please explain. Toohool (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the original file. I secured permission from the AP to use this file 15 years ago for Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that, we're making a fair use claim for it. Using the image that was uploaded later is at a resolution not in accordance with a fair use claim, it's too high of a resolution. This is image is clearly copywritten by the Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time and he is still alive. There is no valid public domain claim to be made for this image. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "PD", Keep fair-use See above. EEng 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep PD version as PD in the United States per 17 U.S.C. §§ 19-21 (1976), as there is no evidence of notice, and no evidence of a contractual requirement to provide one. Replace non-free version with PD, then delete as no longer required. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment For reference, a discussion on Commons about another AP photo in exactly the same situation has been closed as Keep. Toohool (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep File:TrangBang.jpg, delete File:The Terror of War.jpg Huntster (t @ c) 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: On what basis? Toohool (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
WrapupEdit

@Fastily can we wrap this one up now? The only support for keep for the new image is the uploader. We've been trying to have discussions about it but his positions usually amount to referring to statutes and caselaw. This is pretty clear lawyering. OTRS has a letter from the copyright holder stating they own this image and granted our permission to use it. Notwithstanding that permission we're making a Fair Use claim here. I think the original image should stand with its Fair Use rationale and the subsequent one should be deleted. Pretty clearly I'm involved here so I won't wrap this up but think it should be. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me pointing out that your argument for deleting the image is based on misunderstandings of the law is not lawyering. And we don't delete public domain images just because someone makes an invalid claim of copyright. Toohool (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Discussion has grind to a halt on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrapup

[edit] @Fastily can we wrap this one up now? The only support for keep for the new image is the uploader. We've been trying to have discussions about it but his positions usually amount to referring to statutes and caselaw. This is pretty clear lawyering. OTRS has a letter from the copyright holder stating they own this image and granted our permission to use it. Notwithstanding that permission we're making a Fair Use claim here. I think the original image should stand with its Fair Use rationale and the subsequent one should be deleted. Pretty clearly I'm involved here so I won't wrap this up but think it should be. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me pointing out that your argument for deleting the image is based on misunderstandings of the law is not lawyering. And we don't delete public domain images just because someone makes an invalid claim of copyright. Toohool (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Discussion has grind to a halt on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg

[edit]

File:Execution of Nguyen Van Lem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toohool (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vzbs34 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
(nominated by George Ho (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

This file was recently uploaded as being in the public domain to replace the same file, File:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, that has been labeled as being fair use since it was uploaded in 2003. I am not sure, which is correct, but I feel it needs a definite answer here. Aspects (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as uploader. Image was widely published by its proprietor without a copyright notice in 1968 and therefore became public domain ({{PD-US-no-notice}}). It just seems that nobody has noticed this fact before. Toohool (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Toohool, Why would public domain photos be here instead of at c:? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Koavf: In this case, because Commons requires that images be free in the US and in the country of origin. As explained on the file description page, the image is probably copyrighted in its country of origin (whichever country that may be) at least until 2055. Toohool (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Huh? What do you imagine the country of origin could possibly be, if not the US? EEng 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    @EEng: Please refer to the explanation in the licensing section on the file description page. Toohool (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    You mean where it says The photo's country of origin is unclear, as it was distributed by the Associated Press and may have been published simultaneously in any number of countries i.e. you're just guessing that it "may have been" published simultaneously in any number of countries? This is getting completely crazy. EEng 03:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am following Commons' precautionary principle - I can't confidently say that photo is public domain in its country of origin, so I didn't upload it to Commons. I uploaded it to enwp because I'm confident that it's public domain in the U.S. What's crazy about that? And how is it relevant to whether the file should be kept here on enwp? Toohool (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Huh. Why aren't you following the same logic with everything you've uploaded to Commons? How can you can you know anything wasn't published simultaneously in any number of countries? That's what's crazy. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Because Commons policies are interpreted by humans, and I don't think those humans would try to enforce the rather absurd result of treating photos taken in the US by US photographers working for US companies as having some other country of origin. Again, what does this have to do with whether to keep this image on enwp? Toohool (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as fair use. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, no one questions that we can keep a fair-use copy. The issue is the new claim of PD. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the so-called PD version, as the evidence for PD is full of holes -- precisely the same problems as with WP:Files_for_discussion/2020_April_24#File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg. Keep the fair-use version, of course. EEng 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't have the time to wade through that discussion, the only "hole" that EEng has identified there is his speculation, against any evidence, that the AP had a license agreement that required these photos to be published with copyright notice (which, if it were true, would mean that copyright was not forfeited). Toohool (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the holes are (a) that you keep saying publication without notice means PD, and that's not true, and (b) you are unable to say what form and location of notice is required, and that matters to the question of whether notice is missing. EEng 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Those aren't "holes", those are just you taking my statements out of context, making assumptions about what I do or don't know, and jumping to conclusions from the fact that I haven't written a treatise on copyright law in response to your demands. Toohool (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, cautiously, due to Toohool's replies below so far; was Delete as a potentially-copyrighted image for which we already have a fair-use version: This file has significant doubt about its public domain status, particularly as nobody has shown actual citations of Associated Press member agreements or policy of the time, let alone U.S. policy or case law about whether a publication that was authorized with the requirement to provide copyright notices, then published without the copyright notices, was actually an authorized copy. Details:
    1. This is a 1968 photograph, created (i.e. put in tangible form) by a U.S. citizen in what was, at that time, Saigon, South Vietnam; I don't think there's any doubt that it was soon after published in newspapers around the world. In 1968, the U.S. copyright law was a version of the Copyright Act of 1909, not of the present Copyright Act of 1976 that took effect on January 1, 1978. Wikisource:United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 1/Sections 19 to 21 shows United States Code Title 17, Chapter 1, § 20: "notice of copyright shall be applied ... if a periodical either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading" but also says "One notice of copyright in each volume or in each number of a newspaper or periodical published shall suffice." § 21 then says: "Where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this title with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, but shall prevent the recovery of damages against an innocent infringer".
    2. Wikipedia and Commons have a common principle that the burden is on those wishing to include content, not those wishing to exclude it, to prove that the external content meets wiki guidelines. Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is a manifestation of this. In order for the file to be kept on English Wikipedia, either it would have to be beyond significant doubt that the photograph was not registered for copyright, or both of the following would have to be true without significant doubt:
      1. The publication's copyright notice was omitted or defective not only on the photograph page, but also the title page, the "title heading", and the "volume" of the publication; and
      2. the Associated Press either had not "sought to comply" with the copyright notice requirements, or the copyright notice omission was not "by accident or mistake" and someone can find U.S. law to clarify whose "accident or mistake" excuses the lack of notice.
    3. There was some mention of "simultaneous publication in multiple countries" that included the U.S. For works before 1978, I wouldn't defend a file with that on English Wikipedia. First, before 1978, works published in the U.S. within 30 days of first foreign publication were U.S. publications for purposes of U.S. law, and U.S. law is what carries on English Wikipedia. Second, following another country's copyright provisions would, if anything, make it more likely that the work retains copyright: Other countries either were part of the Universal Copyright Convention and followed roughly the same rules as the U.S., or were part of the Berne Convention and already copyrighted everything regardless of copyright notice or registration.
--Closeapple (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot to unpack here, it will take me some time to respond in detail. Toohool (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Closeapple: In reading § 20, you are conflating the copyright to a periodical with the copyright to a contribution to a periodical. The copyright notice for a periodical, as you point out, may be located on the title page or first page or under the title heading. But, it only secures copyright to the portions of the work owned by the publisher, as SCOTUS summarized in 2001: "Pre-1976 copyright law recognized a freelance author's copyright in a published article only when the article was printed with a copyright notice in the author's name... Thus, when a copyright notice appeared only in the publisher's name, the author's work would fall into the public domain, unless the author's copyright, in its entirety, had passed to the publisher." (The "author" in this case being the AP, and the "publisher" being the individual newspaper.)
As the periodical copyright did not cover articles or photos not owned by the periodical itself, those had to be individually copyrighted as contributions. The notice requirements for such contributions are specified in Appendix A of chapter 2100 of the Compendium of Copyright Practices. The location of the notice is specified in part 4.3.3: For a single-page contribution to a periodical, notice must be placed "anywhere on" the contribution. There was no such notice in this case. (For that matter, neither was there a periodical copyright notice for most of the newspapers.)
Reliance on the "accident or mistake" clause (§ 21) is misplaced. As you have asked for citations about how this clause is applied, see Leaffer (p. 153), McLain (pp. 693-694), or van Gompel (p. 22), and the cases cited therein. That provision was narrowly interpreted to cover omission from a small percentage of copies, because of mistakes like manufacturing defects. It did not cover negligence or mistakes of law (such as "I didn't think a copyright notice was required" or "I just forgot to add a copyright notice"), and certainly did not cover cases where notice was omitted from all copies of a work.
Nevertheless, it is valid to theorize that the AP's member agreements might have required the photo to be published with a copyright notice, and therefore copyright was not forfeited if the newspapers violated that requirement. This is a legally sound theory (per American Press Ass'n v. Daily Story Pub. Co.), as I've acknowledged earlier in this discussion. But it is not a factually sound theory. What evidence is there to suggest that such a requirement existed? AP photos were routinely published every day by newspapers all over the country, with no copyright notice in sight (except in very rare cases). If the AP required all of its photos to be published with a copyright notice, wouldn't you expect that there would be at least one newspaper somewhere that did that? I don't think anyone will be able to find an example of such a paper. If the AP required copyright notice to be affixed to this particular photo, wouldn't you expect at least some newspapers to have done so? I looked at a lot of newspapers where this photo was published, and not a single one had such a notice.
As for your concern about publication in multiple countries, I think you may have misinterpreted that conversation above. The point was raised in response to a question about why I uploaded the photo here instead of on Commons. As you correctly state, it is likely that the photo might be under copyright under another country's laws. That is exactly why the photo is here at English Wikipedia, where we are only concerned about U.S. law, instead of at Commons, where policy requires PD photos to be PD in the U.S. and in their country of origin.
I agree that we should not keep the photo if there are significant doubts about its PD status, and I hope this puts your doubts to rest. Toohool (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The main reason that I'm guessing that the AP must have required a copyright notice as a condition of use, if not enforced than at least nominally, is that your alternative hypothesis seems even more astounding: You're saying generally that the AP, which has been a massive content source in the United States for decades, and which would have both motive and resources to uphold the exclusivity of its output, nonetheless spilled everything right out into the public domain continuously and immediately for decades on end. If true, then even more astoundingly, nobody else seems to have substantially exploited it before now. Are you basically calling open season on everything that came from or through the AP up to 1978? If so, this seems like a big deal for English Wikipedia and Commons; it almost seems like something that would require a new PD tag like {{PD-US-AP-no-notice}} to explain what's going on. --Closeapple (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Closeapple: It seems astounding from the perspective of today's world, where copyright exists by default and there's been an explosion of content that presents many new opportunities for licensing. But 1968 was a different world.
The AP said it themselves in 1942 when they argued before the Supreme Court that news "has no value after it has once been published". One expert discussed the question in 1953 of why so many newspapers were not copyrighted, attributing it to this idea of news having little durable value, combined with a perception that the formalities of copyright (registration and deposit) were too onerous.
To some extent, the AP had means other than copyright to protect their work. There are a number of cases where they tried to stop competing news outlets from copying their reports immediately after publication. They were able to do this because they convinced SCOTUS to create the hot news doctrine. See for example Associated Press v. KVOS, where a radio station was sued for broadcasting AP reports verbatim without permission, but there was no suggestion that it might have been a copyright violation.
They did, however, distribute some copyrighted concept. It shouldn't be assumed that any AP rules about copyright notice were "nominal", because newspapers did, to some degree, attach notices to whatever content was meant to be copyrighted. For example, on the same day this photo was published, there were at least 62 newspapers that printed an AP copyright notice for their daily stock quotes. I also found 4 examples of photos that were distributed by the AP in 1968 with copyright notices (copyrighted by the local papers that had produced the photos), and out of 63 total instances I found where one of them was published, 33 to 55 percent included the copyright notice. So the total absence of copyright notice for other content should be taken as good evidence that there was no intent to copyright it.
But yeah, for the most part, it is open season on the vast majority of content distributed by the AP and other wire services before 1978 (and maybe to some extent, 1989). I'm not sure there will be some big rush to exploit this though. It's been known for some time that the AP renewed copyright for virtually none of their photos, so that pre-1964 photos are public domain, yet there hasn't been any flood of these images of Commons. For one thing, it's hard to find decent copies of most of these photos--a scan of a grainy newspaper print is not going to look very good. Toohool (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hate to have to relist a discussion that started in April, but the question of whether or not this file is fair use or PD still seems unclearly answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep high-res version as PD in the United States per Mdaniels5757 and the reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-06#File:Campus Guns.jpg. As odd as it may seem now, when reproductions of old news photos are a lucrative business, we have no reason to assume that AP in 1968 contractually obligated newspapers to provide copyright notices. Wikiacc () 02:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If this gets relisted again, please try to keep it together with Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 9#File:The Terror of War.jpg, which has the same core copyright question. Wikiacc () 03:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: PD status in the United States is unambiguous and certain, thus the file can be kept as a PD image on enwiki. PD status in other countries is uncertain, thus it is a safe precaution to not host the file on Commons. Fair use policy is not relevant to the issue at hand, since there is no need to follow FUP for a PD image. --benlisquareTCE 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "One last time".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep local as PD. Having read through all three threads (The Terror of War.jpg and Campus Guns.jpg in addition to this one), I think it has been established that it is extremely unlikely that this image was published with copyright formalities (or to put it another way, there is no significant doubt about the fact). The reasons are that AP generally did not observe such formalities and, for this image specifically, no first publications have been found with a copyright notice despite extensive search. Because, in a few cases, other AP photos were in fact published with a copyright notice, we know what to look for and where (in the Rudolf Hess case, an extensive search easily located first publications with the notice). The theory that U.S. newspapers were under a contractual obligation to always comply with formalities but failed to honor it for decades with impunity is unreasonable (instead of something that would cast significant doubt on the freedom of this file) both because it is unlikely to be the case and because it is impossible show the (non-)existence of such a contract. Finally, the AP letter claiming blanket copyright over all AP content ever is both predictable in covering all bases and demonstrably false, not only because copyrights expires in general but because other AP photographs have been shown to have expired. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

October 3

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg

[edit]

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EEng (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#7 as the original image from the 1958 paper is in the public domain (see File:WugTest.png and external investigation). While the copyright status of this image is unclear, the original published wug test was not colored so this is certainly not the original and so can be replaced with a free and more encyclopedic image. Wug·a·po·des 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The archived copy of the source mentioned in the file description attributes the image to "The Wug and Wug Test © Jean Berko Gleason 2006", which seems to refer to Berko's 2006 book mentioned in the Lingthusiasm Q&A. (Ironically(?), an excerpt of the article on McCulloch's blog seems to be the only version of the source that's still online.) Nardog (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That was my guess, but I'd never seen that book. It's not clear whether adding color to the wug is sufficient transformation to reach the threshold of originality, but taken in context of the entire work (which was first publication for all the other stimuli except wugs) it may be. If not, then this would also be public domain since authors cannot exercise copyright over public domain portions of an otherwise copyrightable work. Wug·a·po·des 03:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I was 100% convinced the "ricking" image was a meme made by someone parodying the test until I saw the archived page. Nardog (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not for copyright reasons (the original has what looks like a valid claim of being PD, this is merely a coloring-in of the original, and I don't believe that's enough to pass the threshold of originality) but because it's low-quality, unencyclopedic (because of its low quality and because it cuts off the top part of the image losing significant aspects of its meaning), and currently orphaned. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    I can't recall why it came out so awful but I was just too exhausted to figure it out. If you can make a better one that still respects NFCC that'd be great. (See the discussion linked from one of the versions in the upload history of the file.) EEng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I fixed the blurriness. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait (see below) I've nominated the "PD" version for deletion Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WugTest.png so let's not be hasty. EEng 09:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    Wait how long? Commons still has open deletion discussions that were started last February. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    I forgot we were talking about Commons. EEng 03:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let it die a natural death in a couple days when it meets WP:F7d. If the discussion on Commons results in deletion, then we can upload a non-free version again, this time preferably in better quality—just because a fair-use image must be low-res doesn't mean it has to be so blurry. Nardog (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    The blurriness has been fixed. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Contrary to what the nomination says, the original test is in color, as shown in this file; the image in Word, where the research was reported, is in B&W because Word didn't print in color. I've corrected the article to reflect this [7], and as a result this file is no longer orphaned. EEng 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg

[edit]

File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per the very detailed fair use rationale on the image description page - that should cover the nom's concerns. schetm (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's the article content which the non-free use should reflect, not what's written in the nfur. This file is being used in three articles and the problem with this nomination is that it's not clear whether only some or all of those uses are problems, and I think it's important to asses each use separately. History of BBC television idents has 25 non-free files being used in it, which I think is the most of any current article. To me it seems like a sort of a "discography for BBC news indents" with lots of redundant content that can be found in individual articles. To problem with non-free files being used in multiple articles is that not all the uses are equivalent so just !voting delete or keep without specifying which uses implies that all the uses are equivalent. There's nothing in relevant policy that states that a file can only be used in one article or one time; policy does, however, require us to minimize non-free use as much as we can and that might be something worth discussing with respect to not only this file, but all the files used in the ident history article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it really need to be used in three articles though? That doesn't to me as minimal use.Jonteemil (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It might not be, but your original post doesn't distinguish between the different uses in different articles; this is another problem with the kind of mass nomination of files that you did. It's not clear whether you're suggesting that all of the file's non-free uses aren't compliant or just some aren't compliant. For example, the use in BBC Two '1991–2001' idents might actually be OK since the article itself seems to be particularly about this former ident or the series of idents it was part of, i.e. it's used as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article in a sense; so, that's not really a case of WP:NFC#cite_note-4. The uses in the other two articles are not so clear, but the one in BBC 2#Presentation seems like it could be OK depending how redundant you think the content in that section is to the 1991-2001 history article. The use in the more broader BBC indent history, on the other hand, article seems unnecessary in my opinion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Anyway, the point is that this is a file with three uses and some of these uses might be OK. This makes this particular discussion a bit more complex than perhaps some of the other files you nominated and thus this file shouldn't have been bunched in with all the others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Overwatch loot box.gif

[edit]

File:Overwatch loot box.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as the article talks about the loot box as a general idea which is not specific to Blizzard's Overwatch. It is entirely possible to create a free equivalent serving the same encyclopedic purpose. Wcam (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep While the general concept of a loot box (where this is being used, a box that dumps out random game items) could easily be recreated via a free approach, it is the animation and the visual elements that are used in Overwatch's implementation of the loot box opening, which are designed to create anticipation and thus part of a psychological effect (and thus why they are compared to gambling) that is discussed in depth in the article, which would be nearly impossible to recreate appropriately within that free image that this particular non-free is capturing (including why this is animated). Otherwise reduced to meet all possible NFC metrics. --Masem (t) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless you volunteer to create said free equivalent, I do not believe it should be deleted. That is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg

[edit]

File:Fair Use of The Soulquarians.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jean15paul (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I am aware that we typically permit reduced resolution images of album covers for use in articles about albums, but when it comes to the musical group, particularly when many members are still alive, we don't permit copyrighted images. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded this low resolution copyrighted image because no free equivalent image is available. The Soulquarians are/were a musical collective, not a group who regularly performs or appears together. As such this images from this copyrighted photo shoot are the only time the entire collective was together. Jean15paul (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI lists an exception, which may be relevant here: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." A fair-use image of one member from the collective would not be an adequate illustration for the Soulquarians article, so I would lean on keeping this image. In addition, two of the deceased members were among the key members by reliable accounts. isento (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, this would be replaceable with a composite image made from free images of the individual members. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

File:3F Superliga Logo.jpg

[edit]

File:3F Superliga Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cageyfella (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg

[edit]

File:MGM Ident 1956-57.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LBM (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article Leo the Lion (MGM), in the section "George (1956–1958)", which discusses the specific lion that appeared in this logo.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per NFCC 8 and 3a. Coverage is trivial for any one lion, and there's no need for a large number of substantially similar non-free images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo". NFCC 3a is met, as the discussion of this particular lion requires the display of it. Ditto for NFCC 8. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. One logo with the lion gives a good visual depiction of what the logos looked like; it is not necessary to have all of them when the changes in them were relatively minor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The article that the logo is displayed in discusses the specific lions that were featured in the logos over the years. One logo with a different lion would not serve the purpose that this logo does. There is sourced discussion of George, the lion featured in this specific logo, which means it meets NFCC 8. Another MGM lion logo would not be depicting George, so one item cannot convey equivalent significant information, meaning NFCC 3a is met.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - NFCC 8 is met. As for 3a, it's also met because they enhance the reader's understanding of the prose present in the article. The other lions up in the Aug 14 FFD debacle were also kept. schetm (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2015 NRL Logo.png

[edit]

File:2015 NRL Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CodyCruickshank (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in National Rugby League. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The use in the other article is used as the primary means of visual identification, but I'm not sure if every season's logo can be added to every seasons' article. Jonteemil (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Remove from National Rugby League#2010–present: Establishment of the ARLC. This particular use fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite-4) as posted about by Jonteemil. The file is also missing a non-free use rationale for this particular use, which means that the file is going to be removed at some point probably sooner than later by a WP:BOT if no rationale for this use is added to the file's page.
    Possible keep in an individual season article if can be detrmined when the logo was first used. The file's other use in 2015 NRL season is a bit more difficult to assess. Sometimes a former non-free logo like this has been allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI when it's used for primary identification purposes (i.e. as the main infobox image) in a stand-alone article about the season in which the organization changed its branding, but the connection between this logo and the 2015 NRL season is unclear and thus a problem per WP:NFCC. The file's name, the date it was uploaded, and the description given in the rationale indicate that it was used in 2015, but there's nothing to indicate that this was the first season the logo was used. The caption for file in the main article states "NRL logo used from late 2012 until 2018." There are individual articles for 2012, 2013, and 2014 NRL seasons, but this logo is not being used in them; therfore, it's not clear why the file is being used the 2015 NRL season article and not in any of them.
    If the logo was changed in late 2012 (as the aforementioned caption states) and the typical NRL season runs from March to September, then that would seem to mean that the 2013 NRL season (not the 2015 season) was the first time the logo was officially used in league play. According to National Rugby League#1998–2002: Rationalisation, Telstra started sponsoring the league in 2001. Both the 2007 NRL season and 2008 NRL season show a different logo bwas used than the one being discussed. It's likely that the NRL and Telstra changed the logo a couple of times over the years; so, the thing to figure out is when the change to this logo actually happened and then see if any sourced commentary about it can be found. There's no way to know whether the caption for the file in the main NRL article is correct since it's unsourced and there's nothing about the logo or branding change at all in the relevant section. So, if the season for which this logo was first used can be determined, then I could see using it in that article; if not, then I think it should also be removed from the 2015 season article as well, which means the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg

[edit]

File:Anna Marly - La Complainte du partisan - 1963.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Leonard Cohen, The Partisan, 1968 - 28.5 second excerpt of English transition to French.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fred Gandt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Originally nominated for deletion as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "The article only uses this for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation, which can be portrayed by text alone." Both were disputed on the files' respective talk pages. Listing here for further discussion as a neutral party. Pinging Fred Gandt and Buidhe. ƏXPLICIT 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The current fair use rationale is, "Anna Marly's original version of this song is starkly different than Cohen's, the version that is most well known. To properly understand how Hy Zaret's interpretation altered the song, the excerpt is of a particularly significant verse compared by sources, which will feature in the article along with an excerpt of Cohen's version for reader comparison, while reading the sourced textual comparison." If there is any musical, contextual value based on sourced commentary, it needs to have that on both the file description and in the article. Otherwise this should be delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's currently 3:30am for me, and I am heading to sleep very shortly: Anna Marly didn't record her performance until 1963 (around 20 years after live performance on the radio and subsequent publication as sheet music) and whilst much has been said about Cohen's version, little has been said about Marly's, with most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts. I have included as much relevant sourced discussion of the musical style Marly and Cohen applied to their respective performances as seemed appropriate in the article, but am limited in what can be said about Marly's, as the only recording is somewhat out of time from most source's focus; Marly's recording stands more as an example of what would have been heard 20 years earlier on the radio, with few sources having anything to say about it, because they're more often talking about the broadcasts 20 years hence.
I applied a great deal of effort to avoid cruft and original research while working on the improvements to the article (every statement is sourced, most sources are high quality, and almost nothing is relatively trivial) and may have previously dismissed, as useless or from a poor source, some further discussion of the style Marly applied in her performances and recording, and request some time (at least a few days) to go through all my research again.
I must also request that if the greater concern regarding the fair use of these excerpts is how they're documented (how I filled out the declaration) and not their application, please simply correct the documentation; this is a collaborative project after all, and although I tried my best, if improvements can or must be made, I welcome them. [I]t needs to have that on both the file description and in the article strikes me as a problem with the declaration more than with the files' use or existance; please help correct the issue instead of calling for deletion for technical reasons. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If, as you say, most sources focussing on the words and circumstances of the wartime broadcasts, that would indicate that the musical qualities are not as significant and that text alone could convey the same information. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It should come as no surprise that a song with words written by one of the most prominent members of the French Resistance, composed and mostly broadcast during World War II, with a subject matter entirely about the circumstances of the time, should have most interest in it be focussed on the circumstances and message of the words. For sources to deconstruct the sound of the recording (as an example of the live broadcast performances) would be to trivialize the importance of the song. Much has been said about Cohen's musical interpretation of Zaret's adaptation, because it is fundamentally a pop song, and the musicality of pop songs is respectively a lot less trivial. The article contains sourced commentary about Cohen's sound, because sources consider the weight of the musicality to be high enough to discuss, but I am not at all surprised that sources don't go into detail about Marley's musicality much (although, as said, I will reexamine this) as it was far from what would normally be called a pop song, and its message and raison d'etre are rightly given far greater weight. This state of one version being considered differently than the other by the sources that examine the songs, and to an understandable degree, that the sources are themselves quite different in nature, does not change the fact that both are musical, and by that measure, substantially different. Many sources compare Cohen's to Marly's versions, demonstrating a wide interest in how they differ; the difference between the songs is clearly considered important by those who've examined them, but it should be expected that whilst Cohen's is discussed as a pop song, Marly's is not.
A significant problem I personally had and have in fleshing out the article, is that a vast amount of the sources that might be useful for Anna Marly are in the French language, and although Google Translate helps with some I found online, there are many books, including one I bought for research, that I cannot translate; there may be vast amounts of information about Marly's musicality in the book stacked only metres away from me, but I can't understand it. I did reach out for help, but was quite disappointed by the far from enthusiastic response. Even more difficult to understand/translate for me, are the multiple radio broadcasts still available to listen to online, that are also in the French language; this for example was easy to find, appears to be focussed on her musicality and role in the Resistance, and is entirely in the French language, so I have almost no idea what is being said.
I will need time to see what I can find, but strongly disagree that any further information about her musicality is required to satisfy the requirements for fair use of these excerpts. I wasn't flippant in my uploading of the excerpts, and am sure the points of WP:NFCCP are satisfied; please confirm if it is only point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" that you're concerned about? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In case you missed it @Buidhe:, could you please answer my question above? Cheers.
I have found some references with more specific focus on Marly's musicality, including a German university resource (luckily in English) which directly states exactly what the comparable excerpts are intended to demonstrate: "The melody and chord structure is considerably different from the original."[1] Another article with a focus on acoustic guitar states Cohen "re-worked" the song,[2] but there's really not much else, so it's a bit junky, and a reference already in use (the Independent obit.) mentions "she learnt to play with feeling and invention"[3] which is also a bit lame with this discussion's specific regard IMO.
Please continue to bear with me while I work on this. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ University of Freiburg resource (the source has a relatively minor security issue Google Chrome will complain about, although completely safe to visit, the archive is safer)
  2. ^ acousticguitar.com
  3. ^ the Independent Marly obit.

I don't find any of this convincing so far. Contextual significance is not met if there is only brief mentions of aspects of the song that are not lyrics, because it has to significantly increase understanding. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How would a reader understand that the by far most well known version is significantly different to the original it is based on, in more ways than just the language, without describing that difference? They clearly wouldn't, which would be a disservice to the readers and actually misleading. Without making clear that the version widely acknowledged as definitive is musically unlike the original, no reader could be expected to guess. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't add anything more to my side of this dispute; it's sadly not a discussion. It was never the intention that [t]he article only uses [these two files] for illustration of changes in the lyrics/translation; honestly there would be little point to that beyond some kind of "told ya so" demonstration of the facts as described in the nearby text. The files were always intended to enlighten readers to the huge difference in sound/texture/feeling "musicality" (I dunno) that became the effective default after Cohen's Zaret's, compared with the true original. The musicality of Marly and Cohen (in particular) are (and were before my recent addition of extra details) discussed as and where appropriate, to what degree is reasonable and within the scope of what good sources are currently available; Marly's artistic talents, including her guitar playing and whistling are described where fitting, and the musicality of Cohen's cover is discussed to a greater degree, also where fitting. This dispute did help to highlight that the article was lacking sourced textual discussion of that difference, but I have (at least to a fair degree) solved that omission. Thanks to Explicit (talk · contribs) for recognising that the files' use is linked and listing them here together. I can see no way that the use of these files, in the capacity they are currently used, is a violation of fair use, or any current alternative way to make clear how utterly different the original is to everything post-Zaret. I was about to go on, and on, but I feel as if I'm barking at a wall, so that's that unless some discussion or a decision is forthcoming. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like we have a consensus right here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both. It seems there is "sourced commentary" on the music, but not very much. However the musical differences seem to me very considerable (by my listening to the clips) and the reason that the lyrics are remarked on more than the music is likely to be that books can't address the musical aspects without using technical commentary that may be inaccessible to the reader. The lyrics can be directly discussed in words. My understanding of the musical differences is significantly (indeed greatly) increased by the clips in a way that would not (for me) be possible with textual discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Several Images of mass shooters

[edit]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The use of fair use images of mass shooters who are not notable enough to support their own articles fails WP:NFCC#8. Similar deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 5#File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg have all resulted in delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The nominator made zero notifications about this discussion as required by WP:FFD: The uploaders of the file were not nominated, deteleable file captions were not added to the files in use in articles, no article talk page notifications and no related WikiProject notifications were made. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the four images listed above by Aspects. There does appear to be enough coverage of the individuals in question to warrant a stand alone article be written about them. Ideally that would seem to be the best thing to do, but perhaps for editorial reasons the relevant content has not been WP:SPLIT off into separate articles about each person. If someday individual articles are created, then the image should be removed from the corresponding event articles. Delete the remaining images for essentially the same rationale. The physical appearance of none of the individuals involved seem to be relevant to the actual event or seem to be something that actually requires the reader see a non-free image to understand what is written about the events. Three of the photos are being used in the main infobox of the event article (101 California Street shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids mass murder and Hartford Distributors shooting) which is not appropriate at all for such an article. The other photos are used in "Perpetrator" type of sections which really don't require a non-free image to be used any more than a "Victims" section would require non-free images of individual victims to be used. Moreover, some of the photos have nothing to do with the event at all and were taken years prior to the event which makes their contextual relevance per WP:NFC#CS even more suspect. Out of the remaing photos, File:Clarence Bertucci.png and File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg might be possible to convert to WP:PD (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}), either because of their age and lack of copyright notice or because real provenance since it seems unlikely either of the sources cited for those images are the original sources of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 1

File:She-Venom (Anne Weying).jpg

[edit]

File:She-Venom (Anne Weying).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NeoBatfreak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 8. Different character from the subject of the article. Not critical to the understanding of the subject of the article it's in. Similar illustration already present in the article on that character. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep This is not even the same character, but an entirely different related character. One is male, one is female. I cannot imagine an article referring to a female version of the character and not showing what that looks like.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tenebrae: I think there might be some confusion here. This image is used in Venom, but depicts Anne Weying. My point was that since She-Venom/Anne Weying is not the same character as Venom, then the non-free image of She-Venom should be in the article on Anne Weying, not in the article on Venom. I am not nominating for deletion the image of She-Venom that's in Anne Weying, it's clearly acceptable for an image of She-Venom to be in that article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • While I do appreciate the clarification, I did understand we are speaking of its use in Venom. I don't believe any reasonably encyclopedic article about Venom could possibly forgo a depiction of the female version of the character. The female version is an important aspect of the character's history and fungibility, and certainly not anything that could be adequately described by words alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This fictitional character is a symbiote being which can have any sex depending of its host. The article about Venom should show the two most proeminent versions: Eddie Brock as the male Venom and Anne Weying as the female Venom. Even if the female Venom is not shown on the male Venom article (in the event the article is divided for both sexes), this picture can depict Anne as female Venom on her article. Also, one picture of a comics character, which have thousands of pictures or more (at least one picture per page it is published), each one different of the older one (when on different comics book, drawn by different artists), will not hurt sales of the comics books the character is featured. Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

September 28

File:Francisque Gay.png

[edit]

File:Francisque Gay.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aymatth2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Guise has uploaded a file on Commons on the same subject as this one (which would thus fail WP:NFCC#1) but with no explanation of the licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • This file and the ones Guise uploaded to Commons all seem to have been made around 1948–49, when the subject was ambassador to Canada. I am a bit suspicious about the claim that they are anonymous. They look like official photos or press clippings to me, where the author may well be known. If the author is known, and they are not crown copyright, they might well be protected. E.g. 30-year old photographer, died in 1988 aged 70, protected until 2038. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello. As you can see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], there are no indications about authors' names. --Guise (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • The images in commons:Category:Francisque Gay come from eBay. The vendor does not give the author's name, but that does not mean the author is unknown. They photographs seem to be professional quality. If they were taken for a news agency, the agency may well have recorded the names of the photographers, and the photographs may be protected by copyright. They are far too recent for PD-old-assumed to apply. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusionEdit

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

October 22Edit

Historic Mohun Bagan logosEdit

File:Mohun bagan logo 1980s.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Drat8sub (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:McDowellUnitedMohun BaganFT1998.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Drat8sub (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MohunBaganFootballClubPvtLtd Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Drat8sub (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. In Mohun Bagan A.C. these crests are part of a non-free gallery and are not the subject of sourced critical commentary. The initial crest is the only one even mentioned specifically. The crests are not mentioned in History of Mohun Bagan A.C., let alone the subject of sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mohun Bagan A.C. logo.svgEdit

File:Mohun Bagan A.C. logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RandyFitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from History of Mohun Bagan A.C. per WP:NFCC#8. The crest is not mentioned in History of Mohun Bagan A.C., let alone the subject of sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ryanjasopic.jpgEdit

File:Ryanjasopic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 808sjake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The metadata credits DEREK BAHN. Unclear if this is the same person as the uploader. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent nominationsEdit

October 23Edit

File:Blackpink - The Album physical artwork.jpgEdit

File:Blackpink - The Album physical artwork.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MotherofSnakes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is excessive non-free media. All four of these can be easily described in text and there is no justification per WP:NFCC for five covers, four of which are this simple. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Hollywood Stars cap.pngEdit

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesmiko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as the logo in question doesn't pass the threshold of originality for copyright. schetm (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Disagree with Schetm. This one is too complex for PD-simple. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the noise around the star raises it above the TOO. schetm (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main issue here has to do with WP:FREER not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4; so, the nom's reasoning for bring this to FFD isn't really correct. File:Hollywood Stars.png, the other file being used in the main infobox, is licensed as PD and that seems fine. If the non-free file was simply the same star logo on a black background, then it would be OK to simply change the non-free license to {{PD-logo}} as well. The non-free file, however, has an addition "white scatter effect" added to it (which might be intended to be stardust). This seems like a significant difference that goes beyond a simple shape and might actually be a copyrightable element; so, I agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this point. If the consensus also turns out to be the same, then this file needs to remain non-free. The question then is whether we need to have it along side the freely licensed primary logo or whether simply describing the cap logo as such somewhere in the article is an acceptable alternative to the non-free use of the file. That's a pretty tricky question and is definitely something worth further discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikiacc () 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as non-free logo. It's a borderline case as far as TOO is concerned, so it's probably best to consider it as having sufficient creativity for copyright. Having said that, it properly belongs as the non-free team logo, so that the "entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image". In looking at the team's website, it is clear that this is the only logo now used.  JGHowes  talk 00:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Siachenline.PNGEdit

File:Siachenline.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ritabharidevi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If was deleted on Commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GyongLaNJ9842.png. It was originally uploaded to en.wiki at File:GyongLaNJ9842.png. Now own work of the uploader. It should be easy to make a replacement so I don't think fair use is possible. MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 24Edit

File:Ken Griffin High School.pngEdit

File:Ken Griffin High School.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deltagammaz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a yearbook photo. Yearbooks are collections of works and any copyright applies to the collection, not to individual works in the collection. The photographer may retain the copyright for the student photo (those photos are sold to parents, for example). Mo Billings (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: Mo, I disagree. At least from what I have read that is wrong. The yearbook does not have any copyright notice and was published before 1989 so it is in the public domain. Additionally most schools sign contracts with photographers which give the school the copyright. This photo could probably also be considered fair use considering it's historical context so...
As I explained, the yearbook is a collection. The copyright on the yearbook would apply to the yearbook (collection) not to the individual images. The lack of a copyright notice does not mean that the individual images are not copyrighted. We do not know if the photographer retained copyright or if the copyright was assigned to the school or if this was a work-for-hire. Without that information, we should not assume that this is in the public domain. Mo Billings (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the relevant template is {{PD-US-1989}}. Nominator appears not to be aware that before 1989, publishing a copyrighted work without a copyright notice or registration was enough to put a work in the public domain. (And for compilations, this applied to all the constituent parts as well.) Nonetheless, it's unclear whether the distribution of the yearbook counts as publication. Wikiacc () 01:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in these things, but this article and this article discuss the compilation issue with yearbooks. Mo Billings (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Both posts are good explainers (see also c:Commons:Hirtle chart). Both are clear that if there was no copyright notice and no registration, it's public domain. Wikiacc () 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding post-1977 yearbooks without copyright notices, one says:
There was a photographer, perhaps a photo studio, that took the individual pictures of the students, wasn’t there? Unless there was a contract between the photographer or the studio and the school, making it what’s called a work for hire, the copyright to those photos belongs to the photographer, not the school.
The other says:
Yearbooks published between 1977 and March 1 1989 without notice that were not later registered within 5 years of publication are in the public domain. Each individual photo is a separate copyrightable work that will need to be researched.
It doesn't seem to be as straightforward as simply consulting the Hirtle chart in this case. Mo Billings (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Nobody Does It Better cover.jpgEdit

File:Nobody Does It Better cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rlendog (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image was probably ripped or derived from the Portuguese cover (discogs, 45cat, rateyourmusic). I uploaded File:Nobody Does It Better by Carly Simon US single 1977.png as an intended replacement. However, the uploader de-PRODded the file, saying in the edit summary: "wikipedia is not meant to be US-only. Official covers from any country are appropriate." I'm not trying to make Wikipedia the US-only project. I do upload covers representing or reflecting a band's or an artist's nationality. However, my main concern is the cover's questionable authenticity, its ability to be irreplaceable, and its ability to help readers understand the release of a James Bond song by Carly Simon. I'm confident that a free image should suffice. If it doesn't, then a non-free cover and a free image can coexist in one article but not when the non-free image is the nominated questionable one. George Ho (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the replacement if necessary, but I am not sure what makes the authenticity of the Portuguese cover questionable. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The derived image is not used for the Portuguese release. Rather it is used for the US release, which officially used the generic sleeve (45cat, discogs, ebay (1), ebay (2)) instead of a picture sleeve. Furthermore, the more authentic Portuguese cover displays the B-side track on the front cover. The altered derivative blurred out the Portuguese language and blacked out the name of the B-side track. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Aden Adde International Airport.jpgEdit

File:Aden Adde International Airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GoldenDragonHorn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image was uploaded in good faith from a Flickr source tagged with a free license, but I have significant doubts that the Flickr source actually is the copyright holder. The image in question has EXIF indicating it is copied from a Facebook related app. A review of the photostream shows inconsistent EXIF information and wildly different resolutions for images as well as even one image that bears a watermark. Whpq (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Whpq, is there a way to see where the image first appeared and their original author via reverse image search? As for now, the image should be deleted. I will place Flickr images from now on under more scrutiny before I upload them. I saw the CC tag and ran with it. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@GoldenDragonHorn: I did not find anything on a reverse image search. I use Google for reverse image search and it is only going to know about what it indexes, and I suspect that indexing obscure facebook accounts is not high on the priority list. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Whpq: Yeah, I doubt I'll be able to find the original author, and salvage the image from deletion by getting the correct permission. Lesson learned. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Grand Canyon by Kenneth Tucker 1.jpgEdit

File:Grand Canyon by Kenneth Tucker 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kennethtucker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Only two contributions by this user are their user page and this image in 2005. No evidence that the image was ever used anywhere, currently orphaned. Because of the lack of contribution and the intervening time, it would be difficult to confirm that they uploader is the author in order to authenticate the licensing in order to transfer to Commons.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 25Edit

File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F1.svgEdit

File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F1.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thent1234 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F1.svg File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F2.svg File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F4.svg File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F5.svg File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F7.svg File:AUS Alphanumeric Route F8.svg

recreated as proper SVGs with corrected names File:New South Wales freeway F1.svg File:New South Wales freeway F2.svg File:New South Wales freeway F3.svg File:New South Wales freeway F4.svg File:New South Wales freeway F5.svg File:New South Wales freeway F6.svg File:New South Wales freeway F7.svg File:New South Wales freeway F8.svg after request at WP:HWY/RM old images can now be deleted as redundant and misnamed KylieTastic (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all, redundant to the actual SVG files. Salavat (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Georges.jpgEdit

File:Georges.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anonymous Dissident (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned image and likely copyright violation. The original image is probably fine, but the actual source would be difficult to track down after 15 years. Then it was overwritten by a copyright violation - the uploader didn't update the description, but the upload description includes a copyright notice and a link to the source (archived version) which shows no indication of meeting our licensing needs. I find no evidence that the original image was ever used. I recommend deleting both images, but would not argue with a decision to only delete the most recent.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value (and questionable licensing for the current image). Salavat (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 26Edit

File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpgEdit

File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EdChem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I redrew it from scratch to MOS as commons:File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.png DMacks (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

With the replacement file having been provided (thank you, DMacks), I support the lower quality version that I previously uploaded being deleted as redundant. EdChem (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:William David Vaughan.jpgEdit

File:William David Vaughan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cowtzu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously published photo (see "FBMD" string in the metadata) and also the subject's Bandcamp profile pic: https://vonztech.bandcamp.com/.

Previously published photos require OTRS verification. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wcjdghost.pngEdit

File:Wcjdghost.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GeometryDashFan12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work a non-free file File:Walker Jane Doe2.jpg. Contrary to the uploader's statement, editors are not free to make derivatives of non-free images. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an edited picure of a different file a gd fan (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Found it, thanks. I'm withdrawing the nomindation. Please make sure to cite the original file if you upload a derivative work in the future. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Payot 20201023 01.pngEdit

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 Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Payot 20201023 01.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Not encyclopaedical. No in use, and should not be in use. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted this for being vandalism, but have no idea how to close an FFD discussion. Anyone with clue willing to do the necessaries? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
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:Payot 20201023 01.pngEdit

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 Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Payot 20201023 01.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Not encyclopaedical. No in use, and should not be in use. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted this for being vandalism, but have no idea how to close an FFD discussion. Anyone with clue willing to do the necessaries? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
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.

October 27Edit

File:Roblox Studio 2020.pngEdit

File:Roblox Studio 2020.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PrincessPandaWiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free image stated to be used to " illustrate what the interface of Roblox Studio game engine looks like, to further support the commentary of", but there is no sourced commentary about the studio interface. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Roblox Default Male Avatar.pngEdit

File:Roblox Default Male Avatar.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PrincessPandaWiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is stated to be used "The usual style of the Roblox avatar, such as blocky body, which is often used to associate with Roblox", but there is no significant sourced commentary about the avatar styles. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunset in Ilocos.jpegEdit

File:Sunset in Ilocos.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ice bear johny (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Images uploaded to other platforms before they're uploaded to Wikipedia require OTRS verification with more complete source information. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That is mine tho, wdym? I stated it in the file. What more could you possibly need? Like bruh everything i post somehow contradicts rules >:((
Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong. But license information for images need to be verifiable. So you could do one of two things. You could go to your Facebook page and add a note to your image that you're releasing it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license (CC BY SA 3.0), or submit a ticket to WP:OTRS. Either way, you need to link back to your Facebook page. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:M.O.G Beatz Portrait2.jpgEdit

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 F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:M.O.G Beatz Portrait2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikipro17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image has been previously published at https://twitter.com/MOGBeatz/status/1263510324763930624. Requires OTRS verification. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagged with WP:G12 - there is no evidence of permission for this image and obviously this image was mislicensed. Warned the user as well. Aasim (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
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:Burakdeniz12332.jpgEdit

File:Burakdeniz12332.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hfjyjhj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source is unclear, but it's a widely available photo (see https://twitter.com/i_sanam_/status/1320941905031483398 for example), unlikely to be the uploader's work. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: Definitely not free. A reverse image search says that the image looks like a Turkish actor Burak Deniz. Cannot find the original source so cannot tag with {{g12}}. Aasim (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:VS Code (Insiders).pngEdit

File:VS Code (Insiders).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KamranMackey (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Microsoft permissions grant states that we 'may not use screenshots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released.' Because this screenshot is from an insider's build, it makes the {{non-free Microsoft screenshot}} tag pretty much ineligible. I'd suggest relicense to {{non-free software screenshot}} or replace the image with a screenshot from a stable build. Another thing that could potentially be done is download the source code for the current version of VS code, compile the code themselves, then upload the result under the MIT license, though it may still not be legally okay because the binaries are freeware. Aasim (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 28Edit

Music video screenshots uploaded by Wherelovelives in January 2018Edit

File:Nightcrawlers-Push the Feeling On.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Alex Party-Don't Give Me Your Life.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Nuyorican Soul-Runaway.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Goldie-Inner City Life.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:WhigfieldSaturday Night.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:2 Brothers on the 4th Floor-Never Alone.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:2 Brothers on the 4th Floor-Dreams (Will Come Alive).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:E-Type-Calling Your Name.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Me & My-Baby Boy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Those screenshots uploaded by Wherelovelives are used in their respective articles, but I don't believe that they comply with WP:NFCC#8. I've not yet seen how deleting the screenshots above would affect readers' understandings of the songs. Furthermore, AFAIK, critical commentary regarding those screenshots is either insufficient or absent. Rather either the articles briefly mention the music videos, or the screenshots themselves display the artists' appearances in their respective music videos. I notified the uploader at least three days ago about the screenshots (diff), but I've neither yet received replies nor have seen the uploader requesting speedy deletion on the screenshots. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Whereismyflyingcar.jpgEdit

File:Whereismyflyingcar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Virtualerian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The FUR, wouldn't require an image anyway, does not reflect the actual usage, which is on the lead. This trope is old enough that there should be PD alternatives. Additionally, several free images of flying cars already exist on the article and at Commons, but oddly there is no category yet. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Gloria Estefan-Don't Let This Moment End.pngEdit

File:Gloria Estefan-Don't Let This Moment End.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I would have nominated the screenshot of Gloria Estefan's music video "Don't Let This Moment End" as part of mass-nomination of the uploader's other screenshots. However, I see that the screenshot may show promise to comply with WP:NFCC#8. The image displays Gloria in disco getup with other dancers. Unfortunately, so far I could not find reliable sources substantially covering the music video in Google Books and Google News. Unless I stand corrected, without reliably-sourced critical commentary, deleting the screenshot wouldn't affect readers' understanding of the song, which I'd hate to say. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 29Edit

FooterEdit

Today is October 29 2020. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===October 29===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.