Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13[edit]

File:Squirrel Plush Toy.jpg[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 January 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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) 00:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the photo is freely licensed, the toy itself is copyrighted. See c:COM:TOYS. Whpq (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say the toy is copyrighted? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As linked in the nomination, Commons has information about the copyright status of toys. In the United States, toys are considered to be copyrightable if there is creative expression. Quoting from the Commons guidance, There is no question but that stuffed toy animals are entitled to copyright protection -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If taking pictures of stuffed toy animals is inappropriate, why do we have things like this [1] or this [2]? How are those images different from mine? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because de minimis applies for those images. -- Whpq (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think de minimis sort of applies to this image since the toy doesn't look like a very recognizable character. Furthermore, I didn't add much distinction in the file name and description (two concerns in the guidelines in that de minimis page). With these, the image shouldn't get too much attention the way a toy portraying a popular character would. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The toy forms an essential part of the photograph, so no it is not de minimis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well how does de minimis apply to the other two images I've been comparing to? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2022 (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:Aljazeera.svg[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: Retain. as non-free Whpq (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Arabic calligraphy and is currently labeled as non-free. However, I think that this is {{PD-textlogo}} in the United States. Section 313 (D) of the copyright compendium notes that the [Copyright] Office cannot register a [copyright] claim that is based solely on calligraphy because calligraphy is a stylized form of handwriting that is a mere variation of typographic ornamentation. A previous version of the compendium gives an example that the Copyright Office would not register a character of Chinese calligraphy painted upon horizontally striated grass cloth, a situation akin to a name in Arabic calligraphy placed atop a white background. As such, I think that this is not copyrighted in the United States, and I would advocate that we label this as public domain in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to pd-logo and copy to Commons. 2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:1DA3:BA17:81A6:7510 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo Commons has determined these are non-free (e.g. 1, 2). Also for the record, even if this this was somehow PD in the US (I doubt it), it might still be copyrighted in its country of origin, Qatar (can't find any info on this, but I also haven't spent a lot of time searching), so this is at best {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -FASTILY 04:05, 18 December 2022 (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:KTPN logo 2022.webp[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 G7 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Duplicate of c:File:KTPN logo.png in Commons Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2022 (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:Nokia 3310 front side.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 ⚡ 01:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work as TinEye indicates that this image has appeared on many other websites prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Even assuming the uploader did take this photo, the copyrighted screen is likely an issue. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2022 (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.