Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 15

August 15[edit]

File:Mouk TV series logo.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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -FASTILY 04:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it as non-free content under the pretense that the "furriness" of the text would pass the threshold of originality, but User:The Quirky Kitty changed the licensing to the public domain under the pretense it didn't. I would like this to be settled. Copyright statuses in both the United States and its origin, France, have to be considered. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modify license to {{PD-USonly}} just to be safe. This is too simple for copyright in the US, but might copyrighted in France. The guidance at c:COM:TOO France shows conflicting court decisions on how low or high the threshold is. --

So we should treat France as a country with a fairly low threshold, more like the yellow countries on File:Threshold_of_originality_world_map.svg?

As a small correction, {{PD-USonly}} is used for old works and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for works with differing copyright statuses due to the threshold of originality. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops you are correct. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to PD-ineligible-USonly since it's not clear whether this would be "PD-logo" per COM:TOO France. This was asked about at WP:MCQ#Does File:Mouk TV series logo.png pass the threshold of originality? before being brought up for discussion here, and my !vote is basically what I posted in my MCQ response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2023 (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:Crown of Thorns Phase 1 Map.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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be a derivative work. What is the source? Estopedist1 (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1 My source for the document is the original creator, my boss Rob Onekea. He serves as a digital marketing producer for USD21 (as do I). He emailed me the image in 2020 for the purpose of posting it on the former wiki page (now deleted). I keep a modified version of it in my sandbox in case there is a need for its revival in an updated manner. This is why the file exists. Because I serve in a capacity to represent the original author with his authority on the matter, it is acceptable (to him) that I pose as the creator as needed. Let me know what the next steps are. Please keep in mind, wiki-coding is by no means a forte of mine. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of permission. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the steps needed to be taken. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Even though I indeed have permission to use the file and act on his behalf, this protocol is in accordance with our organization and not wiki standards. No stress. If there is ever a need for the uploading of the file on Wiki, I'll have him establish an account and upload it personally to avoid the drama. Since this literally is only a placeholder image for a FORMER page archived for casual edits in my sandbox, I am not super invested in its existence. I'll just edit the sandbox to include a note to self if I ever need it again in the future. Thanks for the help. I suppose at this point the automated system will remove everything as needed. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2023 (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:Daley Canyon Road in 1870 in the San Bernardino Mountains.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: keep. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was first published in 2022. And Nick Cataldo is still alive. — Ирука¹³ 05:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, error photo is from Edward Daley Sr. in 1870, Edward Daley Sr. is not alive, first published in 1870.Telecine Guy (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it published? — Ирука¹³ 07:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daley Canyon Toll Road, a commercial enterprise. (added to pic)

Keep - If this weas published it would have been circa 1870 making it PD as it is from before 1928. If it was not published, then it is PD because lifetime+70 for Daley Sr. who died in 1896 would make this PD back in 1967. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (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:NirSinha.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 ⚡ 13:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unlike that own works. No source given. Problematic user Estopedist1 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - claim of own work and being the copyright holder for these photos is not credible. Called out for copyright violation on their talk page and claimed it was just an honest mistake, but these images are a wide variety of sizes and EXIF. Note that File:GirishbhaiPatel.jpg is a B&W crop of an image I found here, and File:GCPatel.jpg appears to be in use around the internet like here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2023 (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:Akiko Yano My Neighbors the Yamadas.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 ⚡ 13:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a copy of the infobox (WP:NFCC#3a). — Ирука¹³ 05:56, 15 August 2023 (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:Fontaine.Del.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: keep. Whpq (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that the photo was published/taken in 1930, it only became public domain in the UK in 2000, which is 4 years later than the 1996, required to become public domain in the US. — Ирука¹³ 13:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Copyright_term. Untill 1995, the copyright protection term in the UK was 50 years, not 70 years, so the image was out of copyright by 1995 (date of the law change), and by 1996 (URAA date). Materialscientist (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you copy here one or two sentences that would confirm the information you are talking about? — Ирука¹³ 07:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Copyright Act 1911 provided a longer copyright period, namely the life of the author plus 50 years, for works that were first published after 1 July 1912; thus the date of first publication became irrelevant, provided it was after July 1912. This was retained as the period of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1956 and under the 1988 Act.^[1]"

Thank you. ¶ In what year did the author of the photo die so we can count 50 years? — Ирука¹³ 06:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't and still can't identify the author. In such cases, 50 years are counted from the date of publication, which should have been before 1935. Materialscientist (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Anonymous_works#UK disagrees with you. — Ирука¹³ 01:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the 1995 UK law. Copyright for this image has expired before 1995 both in UK and in Canada. As reflected in Copyright law of the United Kingdom, "The normal practice of British law would have been to freeze the extension, applying it only to new works, rather than reviving expired copyrights." Further, if you looked at this image [1] published in January 1934, you would agree that the discussed photo(s) were taken in the 1920s, well before 1932 when Del Fontaine moved to UK. In other words, I used a wrong copyright template back in 2009. I have corrected that. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad, I'm used to trusting Commons' articles. Could you make the appropriate changes to the article I mentioned above, as well as c:COM:UK. Otherwise, we will receive many more such unnecessary discussions from other participants. — Ирука¹³ 08:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Copyright Act 1911. legislation.gov.uk

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:Oberwerschen B-bracteate.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The license for the photo of the 3D object is unknown. — Ирука¹³ 14:19, 15 August 2023 (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:Musachio II.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the given source gives black-white image. Not sure about the real source. Or maybe photoshopped image? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2023 (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:SMG23 characters.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair use is only as last resort, the SMB movie article already has a cover poster depicting the main characters, so an image like this is redundant. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is indeed correct that the characters are shown on the cover art; there is no need for this additional image under fair use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 17 August 2023 (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:Cars2 FinnMaterLightningMcQueen.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

possibly redundant fair use image, not necessary to depict the article. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the characters are already depicted on the cover, this image is unnecessary in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:54, 17 August 2023 (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:Wolverine AKA James "Logan" Howlett.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine that has been extracted from a freely licensed trailer. It's a bit lower in quality, but I believe it could still replace this non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (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.

[1] Copyright Act 1911. legislation.gov.uk

[1]