Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27[edit]

File:EUV aberrations across slit.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The USPTO doesn't own the copyrights for other people's work. The uploader completely misunderstood the licensing page. Unless there is proof that this is in the public domain from the actual author it can't be here. Majora (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it is filed at US PTO, ownership is no longer the author's and it becomes public domain after 18 months, at which point, anyone can dowmload it. I followed the terms of use.Guiding light (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking right Guiding light? That is not how copyright works at all. And in any case, the "Patent and Trade Office" doesn't really handle copyrights. Those are two completely different and separate things. You do not have to register a copyright. It is automatically granted upon creation. As a federal agency, all material created by the USPTO is automatically public domain. That is pursuant to federal law. But to say that someone would lose their copyright protection just by filing with a federal agency, even after decades, is really really not how copyright works. Copyright protection for general works with a known author in the United States is 70 years after the death of the author. Not 18 months. Not even close. --Majora (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18 months is the publication time, it's effectively secret before then. Go to https://www.uspto.gov/terms-use-uspto-websites and scroll down to "Patent Information". There it reads "the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions". If it were copyrighted, per 1.84(s) at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320999 there should be a copyright notice at the drawing, but there isn't in this case. Guiding light (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely misunderstood that section entirely. 1.84(s) indicates that the author of the work may include a noticeable copyright notice (i.e. ©1983 John Doe) if they so choose to do. If they do that section sets out the exact specifications the copyright notice would be limited to (its print size, etc.). It does not say that in order for the work to be copyrighted it must have that mark. It says it may have it if the author chooses to put it there. As mentioned before, copyright is an automatic process. The actual ©1983 John Doe is totally irrelevant and has been for decades. You don't have to have that on a piece in order to claim copyright. Copyright automatically attaches upon creation of the work with or without the actual © mark. On the Terms of Use link, which you originally attempted to use to claim public domain, it explicitly says The USPTO is unable to grant or deny permission for any materials that may be posted on its website for which the copyright is owned by a third party. This work is not owned by the USPTO. It is owned by a third party who regardless of their choice to include a copyright mark owns the copyright to this image. It cannot be here. --Majora (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, if no copyright is displayed, it doesn't exist, because it cannot be prosecuted.Guiding light (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on that note, I don't think there is anything more to say. A misunderstanding of copyright isn't going to save the image. Copyright doesn't require a notice. It hasn't for quite some time. Sorry but that is the truth. --Majora (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were copyrighted, it is still fair use.Guiding light (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be fair use, but there is a difference between fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The latter has been made specifically more restrictive than fair use for the reasons given in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Each use of non-free content is required to satisfy all ten of Wikipedia's non-free content use criteria: satisfying just one criterion or some of the criteria is not sufficient to justify non-free use. So, if you believe the file's non-free use can be justified, you're going to need to provide a non-free use rationale clearly showing how all of these criterion are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Majora:, is there any clues that the work belongs to a third party? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: The patent that is listed as part of the source indicates that it belongs to Samsung Electronics. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should then pay attention to the Warning, i.e. "WARNING: Not all materials on the USPTO website are works of the U.S. government. When using USPTO websites, you may encounter documents, illustrations, photographs, or other informational resources contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws," and delete the file. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:KarelLavrih.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dubious PD claim, have not been able to verify that {{PD-SerbiaGov}} actually applies (as is required by usage of {{PD-Yugoslavia}}) FASTILY 00:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Die entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens (book by Hermann Rauschning - front page).jpg[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, dark/blurry, no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tate and lyle.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by the SVG File:Tate & Lyle logo 2007.svg on Commons —Guan aco 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SusanneHou.JPG[edit]

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image no encyclopedic use FASTILY 02:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value and of poor quality. Salavat (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic use. Why should it be kept? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Former EFL Cup logos[edit]

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. Neither logo is season-specific and they have been removed from those articles by another user. This leaves removing them from articles where their use is not justified, hence this result. ℯ xplicit 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free use of former logos in EFL Cup#Sponsorship. Neither of these two logos is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Moreover, there have been a number of official sponsors of this particular competition, but there is no article content about the changes in sponsorship that require the reader actually see this two particular logos to be understood.

"File:Carling Cup logo 2009-10.jpg" is also being used in 2009–10 Football League Cup since this appears to be the first time this logo was used and that particular use seems appropriate per WP:NFCCP. For the same reason, "File:EFL Cup.svg" being used in the stand-alone article about the 2016–17 EFL Cup season also seems acceptable since it was the first time and only season the logo was used. The use of file in this article, however, is lacking the seperate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c, so the file could simply be removed from the article per WP:NFCCE.

Suggest keep for both files for only the respective stand-alone articles about the first seasons when the logos were used, and remove from the main article about the competition per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. A non-free use rationale would need to be provided for the article about the 2016-17 season if the consensus is that its non-free use in that article is acceptable. Also, suggest that the non-free use of the 2009-10 logo be limited to only the article about that particular season, and not be permitted in any articles about subsequent seasons such as 2010–11 Football League Cup and 2011–12 Football League Cup per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 Splash Screen by Amr El-Shamy.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image, in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy, articles 1, 3 and 8. The article does not even mention the image. What's worse is that it is setting a trend for including such decorative images. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is being claimed to be used for identification at the top of the article, but is in fact being used decoratively in a section of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Invalid FUR Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Adobe Photoshop Splash Screen.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image, in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy, articles 1, 3 and 8. The article does not even mention the image. What's worse is that it is setting a trend for including such decorative images. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is being claimed to be used for identification at the top of the article, but is in fact being used decoratively in a section of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Invalid FUR Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hermes Pan.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 21#File:Hermes Pan.jpg. ℯ xplicit 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this photo is a "unique historic image," and lamentably I can't think of another appropriate non-free use justification. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Photograph of a deceased individual of encyclopedic interest for whom no free use alternative file is available. If the Fair Use rationale is defective, fix it, do not delete. Carrite (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:LtGovBradOwen 2.jpg[edit]

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. There is no evidence the OTRS email confirms a free license for this specific image. ℯ xplicit 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and unclear if it is actually freely licensed as claimed FASTILY 23:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible that the licensing on this file can be converted to the same licensing used on File:Brad Owen 2.jpg and File:Brad Owen.jpg uploaded to Commons? If it can, then perhaps the file does not need to be deleted and can simply moved to Commons instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Frightening wave-pastel dream.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused in mainspace, appears to have been uploaded in bad faith to make a WP:POINT, unclear copyright status (needs OTRS permission) FASTILY 23:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Wikipedia given it is hosted on Commons. I see no need to retain it locally. Salavat (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Katie campbell.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing clear evidence of permission FASTILY 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear enough evidence of permission. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The permissions field states "The photographer is a friend of mine". Since the photographer is the copyright holder, we will need OTRS permission from the photographer in order to keep the file. -FASTILY 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clear evidence of permission. How's it "Clear enough"? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.