Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25[edit]

File:Suva City, View From Suva Harbour .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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image watermarked "www.JoeTourist.ca" likely copyrighted and a possible copyvio JWilz12345 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - licensing very questionable. The fact that the image is watermarked with "(c) 2004" as part of the watermark makes me strongly doubt the licensing statement. Hog Farm (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To all admins please also check ALL of the uploads of this certain Qiliho. Seems questionable also. Thanks. JWilz12345 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2020 (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:Shajid salim, Singer, Sri lanka.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shajid salim, Singer, Sri lanka.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2020 (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:Korkywithrough2.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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant sourced commentary about this non-free image in the article. Nor is an image of the subject with their work singificantly enhancing a reader's understanding of the topic. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion, as I do think it merits one. I would argue that having at least one image of an illustrator's work is actually an incredibly important part of their article, because it's literally what they're famous for. The problem is that there's tension there- the more useful the image is, the stronger the argument is that it violates copyright and doesn't count as fair use. Probably the most use image to have would be one of Winnie the Witch, since that's what he's most famous for, but the publisher would be much more likely to argue that isn't fair use, than the low resolution rough draft featured here. I chose to use this particular one because I think it satisfies de minimis. Mvolz (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvolz:If de minimis does apply, then you as copyright holder for the photo could release this under a free license. Since the artwork is deliberately part of the image composition with the artist, I don't think de minimis applies in this case. With respect to having artwork for illustration in an article about the artists, I agree in general that would be good thing. The stated purpose would need to be adjusted, and the description of the art and style of the artists is in the article so a case could be made under those circumstances that WP:NFCC#8 could be met. However, the image itself is not very good at representing this. The artists is best known for Winnie the Witch which does have a cover art in the article. A case could be made for re-using File:Winnie the Witch.jpg in this article as an example of the artist's style. @Marchjuly: removed that file's use in the artist's image based on WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Perhaps Marchjuly could share their opinion on this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that book cover back in 2017 because it had been tagged/flagged for review for not meeting WP:NFCC#10c. After looking at the file and the way it was being used, I assessed that it didn't meet WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3). Non-free files are required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use and the file was being used in two articles: the article about the book itself and the article about the artist who drew the cover. Whomever uploaded the file did provide a basic non-free use rationale for the use in the book's article, but there was no valid rationale provided for the use in the artist's article; that was attempted later by another editor who simply added "Artist's biography" to the already existing rationale. The two non-free uses are quite different and while non-free book cover art is generally allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about books, the non-free use in other articles is much much harder to justify. After looking at the artist's article, I don't see how this non-free use of this particular book cover could be justified given the little bit of content about the cover itself per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Perhaps there's more that can be added about it that show how this cover in particular is cited by reliable sources and being representative of the artist's style or creative output. Adding more sourced critical commentary about the cover itself will help justify the file's non-free file, but it might still not be enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a tangent (talking about the book cover) but "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician" is, I think, certainly true for author or the musician, but not the illustrator. The author of Winnie the Witch is Valerie Thomas. Her creative work is the text of the book, so the cover is not particularly illustrative of her contribution. The same is true for a musician; their creative work is the music itself, not the cover art. Korky Paul is neither the author nor a musician, he's the illustrator- his creative work and the book cover are the same (excluding the contribution of the typesetter). Statements from the article like "known for his wild characterisation" are virtually useless compared to having an actual example and I'd argue WP:NFCC#8 is or easily could be met. Mvolz (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book cover file isn’t the one being discussed here, and I only was responding to a ping asking for clarification as to why I removed it. If you or anyone else feels that the book cover use in the article about the illustrator does comply with relevant policy, then you’re free to add a separate specific non-free use rationale for that use to the file’s page and then re-add the file to the article. If anyone then disagrees with the rationale, they can either challenge the rationale with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} or bring it up for discussion here. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll remove this image and try to get a Winnie the Witch picture instead, since that is most illustrative. Mvolz (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (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.