Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg

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 ⚡ 06:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No source, and no details of original publication, clearly an official document, the uploader is NOT the author of the original. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description says Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate. If Soad Hosny is Soad Hosny, then it was published sufficiently long ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same claim is made in this edit.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is source needed at least for authenticity?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No source, no way to verify uploader's identity; this is missing evidence of permission at best -FASTILY 17:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced this is Soad Hosny's birth certificate. With my very limited Arabic, I can make out that the dates at the bottom say 1943/2/4 and 2001/7/31 respectively. Deryck C. 15:41, 13 October 2016 (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:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogg

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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 August 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The result of the discussion was: Very reticent delete Based on the discussion, it seems like there are legit concerns about whether the performer would own part of the copyright to the sound file, both in terms of their role in its production and that they may not have been formal employees of the US government when performing. Super-suggestion: That said, I'd encourage users who supported keeping the file such as @TonyTheTiger and Adam Cuerden: to contact the performer via http://alisaweilerstein.com/contact/ and seek permission, as is described on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, it'd be sad to lose a featured sound like this. I'll leave the Featured Sound page up for the time being. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence that the performer released this performance into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 07:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv. Kelly ^hi! 07:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All Whitehouse.gov videos are PD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with three works here: the composition by Kodály, the performance by Weilerstein, and the video by a Whitehouse employee (which is a derivative work of the two). Works by Whitehouse employees are in the public domain, but I'd assume they can't license the composition or the performance. We do not know for sure which works the notice on the website, "public domain", pertains to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The performances are always PD at Whitehouse.gov. For some reason the compositions seem to be too. We went through this at WP:FS when it existed. In fact, the licensing has been reviewed by the experts there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm curious. Can you find the discussion, TonyTheTiger? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello suggests that you may want to talk to Adam Cuerden or Graham87 for an explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing in the discussion indicates the artist released her performance to the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        They are working for the Federal Government at the time of performance. ALL works by employees of the Federal Government are out of copyright - see Template:PD-USGov. The work itself is from 1915, hence is out of copyright in the U.S., as indicated. Speedy keep. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Performing for the President doesn't make an artist a Federal employee. Kelly ^hi! 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For example, Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case shows that making something for the government doesn't automatically put it in the public domain – it's only PD if you are employed by the government. The performers might not be employees but contractors. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        NWhatever the reason, the government says this video is out of copyright. [1] says "public domain" explicitly, without any ambiguity. I presume no-one's actually checked the source link yet; this should have beebn done before nominating it here, as it's entirely unambiguous and would have prevented a bad nomination. We can close this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The White House can release their recording into the public domain, but the artist retains copyright over her performance. Kelly ^hi! 08:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Information on government websites is not necessarily correct. See for example c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:F-35B Lightning II Completes First Land-based Ski Jump Launch 150619-D-AW822-318.jpg. There we have a photo taken by the employee of a private company. The government hosts it on its website and claims that it is in the public domain, but the photographer has uploaded the photo as unfree to Flickr, where the copyright is attributed to the photographer's employer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It is, frankly, your job to prove them wrong, not my job to prove the government correct. The default presumption is PD-USGov barring evidence to the contrary. I'm not even entirely sure that there are performance copyrights under US law, if the underlying work is not modified and the performance is in public. Can you please quote the exact section of the copyright law you think grants such rights? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And in this case, the default is to assume that it's not PD-USGov. It's too much trouble to get a musician to sign a contract saying that she's an employee of the government and then signing another document afterwards saying that she's fired if she's only making a single performance. It's much more likely that she signed another kind of contract which makes her a contractor and works of contractors are not PD-USGov. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NO. The default is to presume the reliable source saying it's PD is correct. Also, you didn't answer the question about copyright law. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The default is to assume that the United States Government doesn't make great effort to use extra bureaucracy. In this case, that means that the default is to assume that the woman wasn't an employee but a contractor. There are plenty of situations where government websites state that something is in the public domain without it actually being in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that there was a photograph of Maya Angelou reciting a poem at the inauguration of Bill Clinton that ended up deleted, and that had been listed as PD-USGov. User:Figureskatingfan, do you have any links to discussions which may prove pertinent here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that one. It was mislabelled by NPR as being an official photo; it wasn't from a governmental site. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this pertains to this discussion, but Adam is correct. The original image, which was used widely in most articles about Angelou, was deleted by Commons because it was mislabeled, as stated on Adam's talk page [2]. We were able to get a replacement, though, after making a request to the Clinton Library, which donated a similar image in color. Also see this discussion on my talk page. [3] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it could have been a work for hire; I didn't follow the discussion all too closely. Another case where a work for hire was deleted was an image of an astronaut, taken for NASA by an outside photographer. I don't remember the name of the file or who was depicted (hence why I asked about Angelou). My point is that there have been cases where works taken by an outsider for the US government have been deleted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: In any case, they're never deleted by default with no evidence whatsoever but base and unfounded speculation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But deletion does happen, even when the image is hosted on a US government website. I can't figure out how things are working in this case, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Basically, people are.. deciding thatthere's A. a performer's copyright under US law (and that they don't need to prove it), and B. Presuming that they know better than the U.S. government who actually got the person to perform what might be in the details of them getting the person to perform that could affect the copyright status. It's basically all speculation and panic about how it might be in copyright because of imaginary reasons without the slightest bit of evidentiary backing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For A, the US copyright office defines the holder of the copyright over a recording as "the performer(s) whose performance is fixed, or the record producer who processes the sounds and fixes them in the final recording, or both." So, in other words, it's quite possible the performer maintains a claim of copyright (though it is likewise possible that the performer doesn't). As I said, I think this is a very gray area, and as such I'm not willing to give a "keep" or a "delete" vote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gray area indeed. I did some reading (references upon request) and turns out performances are eligible for copyright. A performance is a derivative work of the composition. I found differing opinions on whether it is possible to perform a work at all without creating a derivative work (say, even a rigorous note by note performance still entails artistic interpretation and invariably the choice of instrumentation). This is further complicated by the fact that the recording is also a derivative work of the performance. This is where it gets particularly tricky, because the U.S. copyright law on one hand has special provisions for derivative works that are audio recordings (esp. concerning transferability). On the other hand, the law has confusing definitions of what an audio recording is (we are dealing with a video, which may not be an audio recording in the legal sense). There are too many what-if's both ways for someone who is not an intellectual property lawyer to conclude whether this is a copyrightable derivative work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person who posted this on the White House website is not likely to have thought through the copyright issues extremely thoroughly. According to the legislative history of the relevant copyright law about audio recordings, "The copyrightable elements in a sound recording will usually, though not always, involve 'authorship' both on the part of the performers whose performance is captured and on the part of the record producer responsible for setting up the recording session, capturing and electronically processing the sounds, and compiling and editing them to make the final sound recording. ... As in the case of motion pictures, the bill does not fix the authorship, or the resulting ownership, of sound recordings, but leaves these matters to the employment relationship and bargaining among the interests involved."[4] Here, essentially only if there was a contract between the performer and the federal government making her a federal employee (extremely doubtful for a one-night performance) would the performer's contribution be in the public domain. I suppose there also could have been a term in her contract that any performance would be released into the public domain but that seems like an extremely unusual term to have in a contract. Note that if an artist creates a work for the federal government on contract, the federal government can actually own a copyright on it because the copyright can be transferred to the federal government. I just don't think a blanket "public domain" statement on the website is sufficient here. Government websites are wrong about copyright all the time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this argument nonsense; an attempt to limit the public domain by pure speculation. You don't know what arrangements were made, but are quite happy to list specific possibilities that might suit your view, maybe. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be relisted but I'm getting a script error right now so maybe later. I wanted to add that we've deleted many White House videos from Commons, including performances of material from Hamilton (the musical) and a video introduction to Merrick Garland. They were listed as in the public domain but the WH did not do due diligence to the composition copyright (in the first example) and to the source material (photos and materials from Garland's early life, in the second example). Can't give WH carte blanche on multimedia. czar 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: could use wider input on performance copyright
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calliopejen1. The performers' rights don't seem to have been taken into consideration. File is missing evidence of permission at best -FASTILY 04:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 can you please comment here regarding this WP:FS file.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get involved in this at all. Graham87 06:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind everyone that the White House staff can be completely unreliable on intellectual property issues around official photographs, Back in 2011, a newspaper whose audience were extremely orthodox believers, who thought no image of a woman should ever be published, went to the trouble of photoshopping Hilary Clinton out of the image of Obama's office, in the photo of his cabinet listening to the SEALs assassinating Osama bin Laden. Officials at the White House admonished this small publication, for, as I recall, "using white house images in an unauthorized fashion." They threatened the paper with never being allowed to use any White House photos in future. The photo in question was taken by an official photographer, so it was unquestionably public domain, and the newspaper could have given Hilary a hitler mustache, or devil horns, without requiring anyone's permission.
I think it is regretable that WMF projects bend over backwards in attempts to make sure we never get accused of a copyright infringement. The WMF has received about a dozen DMCA take-down notices. In most cases like this why shouldn't we keep the file, and wait for a take-down notice? Geo Swan (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (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:Eg-map.gif

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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 17#File:Eg-map.gif

Unused, near duplicate of File:Eg-map-a.gif FASTILY 01:10, 27 July 2016 (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:UL mark.png

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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:UL-EU-Prüfzeichen.TIF FASTILY 01:12, 27 July 2016 (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:Steelshark.jpg

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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 01:29, 27 July 2016 (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:Hatshepsut (cropped).jpg

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 F8 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of File:Hatshepsut.gif, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 01:30, 27 July 2016 (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:Central Texas map.PNG

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 F8 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of File:TexasCountyMap.png, which has been deleted as missing license FASTILY 01:36, 27 July 2016 (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:South Africa Locator Blank.PNG

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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace, superior version available: File:South Africa blank locator map.svg FASTILY 01:36, 27 July 2016 (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:Jeanne and Tatiana 1998.jpg

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: batch close as keep. The discussion below has established that it would take an assumption of bad faith to reject an uploader's (and subject and author) assertion of self-authorship of self-portraits. Deryck C. 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeanne 1975.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very unhappy to see this sort of wikilawyering going on. You have driven Jeanne, who was a wonderfully dedicated editor for many years from our project by this sort of BS. You know and I know that the photographers who snapped these pictures is never going to sue wikipedia. yet the letter of the law MUST crush the spirit of the law. Again. And we wonder why editors, good editors leave wikipedia. Ever heard of the phrase "turning a blind eye?" No? Well do so. I feel that I should repost this at all the moves to remove her pictures, and I believe that I will. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond in one place; it isn't wikilawyering to follow the law. It's actual lawyering. Past court cases have resulted in fairly clear case law that a site is no longer protected by safe haven provisions of the DMCA if they've been handed information that would lead a reasonable person to believe content they're hosting is infringing on someone's copyright. Wikipedia is a huge site, and the law of large numbers applies; if we routinely "turn a blind eye", eventually a potential plaintiff will catch wind of it, see dollar signs, and then the WMF will be staring down the barrel of a class action lawsuit or possibly law enforcement scrutiny. I'm happy to help Jeanne go through the permissions process to keep her images on Wikipedia if she knows who the photographer is and cares to do that. Her activity has not deviated in any significant amount from her norms over the past year within the past few months since her photos were first nominated for discussion, so "driving her off the project" is an extraordinarily strong way of putting things. I'm happy to help her keep these up if she's able to provide enough information to help me cover the project's ass legally. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if I have overstated my case. I used to see Jeanne a lot on my watch list on other articles I watch, and now I don't. I know that this issue is not a new one, she has backed off editing in the past. Actually it is good news to hear that her editing output has not diminished. Well, do what you need to do, that is the best any of us can do, that this is real lawyering does not change my POV. Carptrash (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a moments examination of this image it was clear to me that this was a self-portrait of the uploader. Autobiographical photos used to illustrate a contributor's user page -- like this one -- are an explicit exception to the general proscription to keeping purely personal files here.

Nominator, your nomination of this image gives the very unfortunate appearance of bullying, of naked malice.

WTF did you mean with the phrase "the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload"? How does this criticism apply to an explicitly permitted self-portrait? Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2016 (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:Jeanne and cat 1979.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 27 July 2016 (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:Jeanne beach disco giardini naxos.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:49, 27 July 2016 (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:Jeanne beach disco.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:49, 27 July 2016 (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:Jeanne boleyn at aisha.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently kept at another FfD due to unclear status of the photos uploaded by this user. See Special:PermaLink/730328067, which now confirms that the user has uploaded many files on the assumption that anything taken with her camera is hers to upload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:50, 27 July 2016 (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:Magee,Mississippi in the early days.jpg

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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a photograph of what appears to be a photo from a newspaper. Uploader claims to be the photographer but unless he also took the original photo, this is a derivative work. Whpq (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2016 (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:Port Gaverne.jpg

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: Speedy deleted as F8 (not sure why it was listed here). Miniapolis 13:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now on commons Cotton2 (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2016 (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:Shani Rhys James - Studio with Gloves 1993.jpeg

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 Majora (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is licensed at source as CC-BY-NC and is an image created and reproduced in the United Kingdom. Under UK copyright law re-use of the image on Wikipedia is not permitted. Does U.S fair use overrule this? I would appreciate clarity on the legal bases for including the image on Wikipedia before making a request for deletion. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason.nlw: I don't understand what point of UK copyright law you are referring to in your second sentence to be able to answer your question. You could try to read our policies on Non-Free Content, or I'll try to provide a gusee: It is my understanding that an image of a copyrighted artwork (event with no CC license) can be used in the infobox of an article about that artwork if it has been reduced to a very small version so that a reader can identify that they are reading an article about the artwork that they intend to without being able to laser-print a copy and hang it on their wall. ★ Bigr Tex 19:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The question does not specify the facts and the rationale leading to the conclusion that "under UK copyright law re-use of the image on Wikipedia is not permitted". UK law does not forbid the licensing of works. UK law does not mention Wikipedia. Even if UK law ruled websites in the United States, UK law would permit the re-use of the image on the non-commercial website Wikipedia, provided that the terms of the license are met, and those terms could be met by adding the proper mention of the license (the proper attribution is already mentioned). If the concern is that the National Library of Wales might be wrongly offering its photographic reproduction under license [5] without having obtained the consent of the artist or of the photographer, then that is a matter of trusting the Library. Anyway, in the United States U.S. law applies, including fair use. Use of the image of an artwork in an encyclopedic article about the artwork itself or about its author is one of the best examples of what fair use is. It is not there so that a reader can identify the subject of the article (we are not speaking of the use of a logo in article where the artwork of the logo itself is not commented), it is there so that the reader can see what the article is actually about. It might be argued that, in its present state, the article about this artwork is a bit short to be qualified of substantive and allow fair use, but that is subjective. It could be good to mention the license in the description page, as an information to re-users outside Wikipedia that the image can also be used under the terms of the license (although there is already a direct link to the source, so the mention of the license is accessible by one click). -- Asclepias (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our fair use policy allows this. I changed the licensing tag to the correct one and filled out the rest of the FUR. Closing as keep. --Majora (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2016 (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:'The Rabbi's Concert' by Fred A. Precht.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons considered this work to be public domain. (Precht died in 1942) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems a bit of an exaggeration to say that "Commons considered" that. Commons deleted this file in 2012 because its status was unclear (1). In 2016, the same uploader reuploaded a duplicate of it, with an additional information, possible but from a weak source (2, which, besides, seems about the years of activity more than about the years of life), instead of making a request for the undeletion of the first file. And a specific publication year for the work is not specified, which may affect either the status or the rationale for the status (3). The present situation would be described more accurately by saying that "the uploader considers this work to be public domain" and, because the reupload bypassed the undeletion procedure, the merits of this reupload have not been evaluated by Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The preponderance of evidence (one reference) indicates that Precht died in 1942. In the absence of any contradictory sources, and in the absence of any estate claims of copyright, the reference should be accepted. Hiart (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate and delete since the same file is already on Commons as PD. Deryck C. 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep this as 'fair use', actually, since I just speedied it on Commons as "Recreation of content deleted per community consensus". If it's to be on Commons, it needs to go to commons:COM:UDR, since it was deleted after discussion... the source for when he died is not reliable, and doesn't say that's when he died. Since it gives a 'start' date of 1900, and we claim he was born 37 years before that, it's not something to pin a copyright claim on. If we don't know when the author died, the term in the US is 120 years after creation, unless we know it was published. We don't have any indication of that. Revent^talk 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was deleted on Commons, and the fair use of the image here seems to be in order, I'm going to close this as keep. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2016 (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:4J Studios logo.jpg

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 Majora (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: UK company, Commons:Threshold of originality states that the logo should not be on commons, as it is protected by copyright. - X201 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image taken to DR on Commons. Closing this as keep. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (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:Zentyal logo.jpg

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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (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:Zambon logo.jpg

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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2016 (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:Zalman Logo.svg

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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate considered below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (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:Youth Foxes.jpg

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fair use. Commons has deleted the same picture as unfree. Deryck C. 15:54, 13 October 2016 (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:ABC Studios.png

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 ★ Bigr Tex 19:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate considered below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uploader endorsed. Should have simply been replaced with current version, similar outside of logo effect and nothing compelling about a keep. Nate • (chatter) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (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:ACMAT logo.jpg

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicated considered below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2016 (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:YesAsia logo.gif

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 (file changed in article) ★ Bigr Tex 19:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is familiar to you, but please use links to explain things more clearly. Apparently TOO refers to WP:TOO, and the nomination has been made because a duplicate exists at Commons: Commons:File:Logo von YesAsia.gif. Given that, (as file uploader) I have no objection, assuming that you will replace the link in the article YesAsia. Thanks for the notice on my talk page. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 27 July 2016 (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:Xtend Logo Color.png

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2016 (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:Wust El-Balad-Logo.JPG

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons duplicate is considered to be below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2016 (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:Rnb.jpg

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 ⚡ 10:04, 4 August 2016 (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:UteWarClub.jpg

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. Banned users' contributions are undone by default. Although this is unlikely to be a copyright violation, the fact that this hasn't been used in its eight years of existence would suggest that it isn't worth making an exception to keep it... @Jo-Jo Eumerus: If you can find a use for it, retrieve it from the deletion log and upload it to Commons yourself Deryck C. 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upload by indefed user. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the indef wasn't for copyright issues, so the image can still stay - may be useful for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 4 August 2016 (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:Zip Burger with Beer Battered Fries and Zip Sauce in Magee,Mississippi.jpg

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 ⚡ 10:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poor, out of focus shot of a burger of zilch encyclopaedic use. Fails WP:NOTIMAGE Nthep (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2016 (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.