Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 25

September 25[edit]

File:Lillian Gunter's Notebook 1.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source states, "This photograph's creation, acceptance, or submission date is unknown." There is no evidence of a a free license. ✗plicit 02:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, potentially relicense to non-free biog pic for use on the Lillian Gunter article only as there isn't a free alternative available at this time. Salavat (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gunter died in 1926, so the photograph must have been made before 1928. However I don't think we yet know when the photograph was first published or displayed. pburka (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly looks like a formal studio photo to me, and those used to be considered published as soon as copies were distributed from the photographer to the client. So in my eyes we should be able to relicense this as {{PD-US-expired}}. Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created by an anonymous photographer and was only recently published. As per c:Commons:Hirtle chart, the only safe thing to do is to wait 120y from creation. Since we also don't have an exact date of creation, given Lillian Gunter died in 1926, this can't be legitimately PD until 1926+120 = 2046). More context available at this DR. -FASTILY 21:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more input on whether conversion to non-free use is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to {{PD-US-expired}} based on @Felix QW's rationale. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pogon-logoNEW.svg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the copyright law mentioned on commons:File:Pogon-logoNEW.svg it's not clear that this logo would be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Koenigsegg logo.svg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons this file is considered to be uncopyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Assyrian state proposed during World War I.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of the image says "All rights reserved", quality looks like a scan. Questionable licencing. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like the uploader took a copyrighted map and coloured some lines using highlighter markers. At best, a derivative work based on a copyrighted map. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gardevoir by jtveemo.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER - it would be possible to create a free equivalent of this image that serves the same purpose, simply by an artist releasing their art into the public domain. It's also pretty arguable that it falls under WP:GRATUITOUS, though that's not the main reason there is a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: how would it be possible to create a free alternative if all Pokémon characters are copyrighted? Skyshifter ^talk 21:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: The last sentence of WP:FREER states that a freely released image of a copyrighted subject is preferable to an image with 2 copyrights, that of the fan-artist and that of the original character's creator. So, it still applies even though Pokemon themselves have a copyright. Simply having "released the image publicly on their social media" does not demonstrate that it is in the public domain or has been released under a free license. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it. Skyshifter ^talk 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm:@Zxcvbnm: A problem here is Zx is compounding two issues: one is the fan artists's copyright indeed, but the other is that there cannot be a copyright free version of an image for this, as any image used would still be under Nintendo's copyright for illustrating a subject in the article. Even if you got the artists' permission for their fan art, it would still fall under that same problem. That said too arguing "you need the artist's permission" is also flawed logic, as by that stretch we'd be unable to use any third party illustration such as artwork for magazines and manga.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: No, it seems Zxcvbnm is mostly correct. It's impossible to get a free version of this file, but it may be possible to get a "freer" version. Per WP:FREER: "We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art." Nobody is claiming that we "need" the artist's permission, just that it would be possible and preferable. Whether or not that's a strong enough argument for deletion, though, is up for debate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Rhain explained, WP:FREER states that "Non-free content can be used in articles only if:

Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria". Part of the NFCC is that there is no "more free" equivalent that could possibly be made. In this case that is not true, as an artist could definitely make a "more free" version without having to use an existing, artist-copyrighted fanart. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Okay so you are saying the artist's permission is necessary in this case? Because Rhain noted that isn't a necessity and is preferable, and you're agreeing with them...but then implying that it is? Is that the hangup? If so wouldn't it have been better to simply suggest asking the artist before this? Don't get me wrong I'm not keen on the related article existing as is, but it feels like this discussion can come up elsewhere possibly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: It requires the artist to release the image under a free license, not just get their permission.

And that isn't the only problem. Once it is uploaded to Commons it has to comply with COM:FAN. So in all likelihood, it wouldn't be able to even depict a real Pokemon. Maybe an example creature that is similar to a Pokemon but does not infringe on copyrights. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're setting up an impossible state: the image couldn't be uploaded to commons and still be relevant to the article because it needs to depict the subject *of* the article. Even derivative designs of Pokemon would still fall under Pokemon's copyright. It either ends up non-free, or unrelated to the article's subject. You can't have both.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FAN gives the example of "A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses, with a zig-zag scar on his forehead" to represent Harry Potter, but without actually infringing any copyrights. Similarly, a drawing could be of a Pokemon-esque creature, but not an actual Pokemon, as long as it is able to be identified as something similar enough. There is no particular pressing need for the article to use a direct depiction of a particular Pokemon, nor one copyrighted by a specific fanartist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for this instance. The example you used is only viable in Harry Potter (character) because it illustrates two key design details for Harry. You can't have that situation in an article about porn in Pokemon because there's no "baseline": given the nature of the subject it has to illustrate a fan work related *to* Pokemon and the subject of porn of the franchise, and that work tends to be all over the place in terms of art style and substance. I mean I can get if you don't want *this* particular image on wikipedia, but a free version isn't viably going to happen for this subject. A "creature that looks like a Pokemon" doesn't fit the definition of the article, and if drawn too close (say anthropomorphic Vaporeon) it fails free-use as is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take a step back and assume that you are correct, and it has to be a drawing of a specific Pokemon. I believe it would still be allowed in Wikipedia Commons assuming that it's a wholly original piece of fanart. Searching in Commons, there are numerous pieces of fanart with copyrighted characters, but released into the public domain by their creators. This brings me back to WP:FREER applying, since it does not have to be a fair use, copyrighted image. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those are in a gray area and often deleted. For example something like Bowsette works because she's not copyrighted. However, a comic that shows her with Mario would fail free use even as fan art. That's why the Bowsette article only has a snippet of the original webcomic as fair use, and a secondary image that's free. You can't really do the same with Pokemon in this case because there's no derivative design with enough commentary (and to be frank the article as is is still questionable, if anything an as aside I think your cultural impact article suggestion has more merit)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have proof that they are deleted simply for, say, having Mario in it, even despite being an original fanart, I stand corrected. Even in a cursory search I found many such instances of approved fanart on Commons, such as this, this, and this, all of which would supposedly need to immediately be deleted if what you said is correct about Bowsette. (Though I'd argue, in the case of the Bowsette page, there is a clear origin dicussed of which there is no real replacement for). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that a creature "similar to Pokémon" could be used to illustrate the article. The article is about Pokémon porn, not "creatures that are similar" (which is also subjective). Though, I don't know why Commons was brought up. Wasn't the argument that a freer version could be uploaded as fair use (as in, still under WP:NFC)? Skyshifter ^talk 00:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought as well after Rhain's argument, but somehow it turned into wanting a free version which isn't possible...anyway, at this point, I'm going to say keep on this. Regardless of my thoughts on the article, the reasoning just doesn't hold water for me.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to be clear, my comment was about obtaining a freer version under fair use on Wikipedia (which is still preferable if possible). I don't think Commons is the appropriate place for an image of this type, since the character design itself is copyrighted. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete We actually don't have a clear license on this image and it's being used for illustrative purposes that does not meet the NFCC in my opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sancho II of Pamplona (2).jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a higher contrast, higher resolution image. — Ирука¹³ 20:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other one is basically the same, just better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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