Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

November 25

File:Ariana Grande - 7 Rings music video.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, this is not educational but decorative. Nothing about this image is justifiable as non-free media that enhances the text enough. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No obvious usage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LtGen John G. Castellaw.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is tagged PD-USGov and credited to the United States Marine Corps, but the source website is a local newspaper. It's likely that the photo was taken by a local news photographer, not by a government employee. Wikiacc (¶) 03:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. No indication at newspaper site that USG was involved other than USG employees. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except for one User: page it is orphaned. Delete it. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Griffith Wildfire.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page cited for permission says nothing about the photo being "free" (except that the KQED site is distributed gratis). The article the photo is in is tagged at the bottom "Copyright © 2020 KQED Inc. All Rights Reserved." Beside the copyright problem, the caption of the photo shows it is actually of the Camp Fire (2018). —teb728 t c 06:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~This file is copyright and i think be deleted.~~DeepGlow²⁰⁰⁹ (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete - This is an obvious copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FaithSmith.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: Missing clear evidence of permission. If you are the copyright holder or have been authorized to upload this file, please follow this procedure to get the file restored -FASTILY 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this was taken in 1974 and the photographer is unknown, regrettably it’s not possible for NAES to have the right to license it—that would only happen if they knew the photographer and that person had agreed. Additionally the subject of the photograph is also living so we can’t make a fair use claim. I’m sorry to say I think it has to be deleted. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: Hello. This use has not been claimed only by NAES--but please note that the president of NAES (Dorene Wiese also serving as the president of the American Indian Association of Illinois) is part of the committee working on the NAES project--but three academic research librarians and archivists at Northwestern University, with the curatorial expertise and legal heft of the university, vetted this image and prepared it specifically for use in Wikipedia articles. Nigetastic (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this reply. That doesn’t address the concerns I named though. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: What I'm perhaps not understanding is this. I've not made a fair use claim. I have--at the request of NAES and the university--used the image under a CC license: "Unless otherwise noted, all content on this website is from the NAES College Collection and has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. We also acknowledge that not all voices are able to be included in this resource and therefore have also assigned a Traditional Knowledge Community Voice label. Furthermore, we ask that any sharing of the content on this website be done ethically, centering the care of and concern for the many people, communities, tribes, nations, and organizations represented as part of NAES College’s history and continuing presence and legacy." NAES archive photo credits The subject, Faith Smith, is still part of the NAES community. Nigetastic (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigetastic, right, indeed Wikipedia’s strict copyright rules can be very hard to understand. It’s taken me years to get a handle on it. Essentially the situation is this. Photographers keep copyright of images they create unless they expressly release it or until it passes into the public domain through time. 1974 isn’t recent enough for that to have happened. And if they don’t know the photographer, then s/he definitely didn’t release the work to them. It’s like if we found this image on Flickr and a Flickr user had put a CC license on it—that doesn’t make the license valid.
Typically an image that’s not properly licensed isn’t allowed, but Wikipedia does make an exception for “fair use”. The problem here is that, as you say, the person is alive and still in the community so it’s very plausible another image could be found or made (in fact that’s likely the easiest way forward); this voids the fair use rationale. But I only mentioned fair use when I was trying to think of ways to avoid deleting. I’m sorry that I don’t think it qualifies for that either.

For what it’s worth, this problem is incredibly common with these headshot/yearbook-style photos where the photographer has a copyright claim but they can’t be identified to get a release. Like I say, WP is very strict on this point, stricter than many other institutions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: I appreciate you being very civil about this and explaining. If I can make a request, if instead of just telling me this image cannot be used, could you tell me or at least point me under what circumstances it could be used? As you say, Faith Smith is alive. The university has her contact information. I think she'd be happy to have this photo out there, most of her career being about visibility for Native American women, and would sign a release.Nigetastic (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigetastic, sure thing, I have definitely been there about being mystified by this. To answer your question: in my best understanding, we would need to get the photographer’s permission. As I explained above, that is who owns the copyright, as the work’s creator. I don’t want to make things more confusing but it’s different from “right of publicity” which is the right Smith has on use of her image. In short we only need a copyright release, not right of publicity. But, it is great that Smith might be willing to help though. She might have images of herself where she knows the photographer and could put you in touch to ask if they’re willing to donate the copyright. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: I appreciate you being very civil about this and explaining. If I can make a request, if instead of just telling me this image cannot be used, could you tell me or at least point me under what circumstances it could be used? As you say, Faith Smith is alive. The university has her contact information. I think she'd be happy to have this photo out there, most of her career being about visibility for Native American women, and would sign a release.Nigetastic (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 I have written my contact at the NU libraries to explain that their blanket CC license isn't meeting wikipedia's perms requests. I asked them to investigate what additional information they have about the photo. Perhaps they have more and didn't use it simply because the CC license meets all of their legal needs. And they have people working in WikiCommons and WikiData who might have some additional insights. My contact there is gone for the week. Could I ask you to let this photo stay until I hear back. They're usually quite swift when they're in their offices. Thanks. Nigetastic (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigetastic, so it’s not up to me, this page is a forum for community discussion to reach a consensus about how to apply policy and usually that lasts a week, but even if sooner than that, an admin decides it should be deleted (we don’t host material determined to have an inadequate license for any length of time), if you can get the photographer’s release, you can always re-upload it then. You have the image file so deleting doesn’t mean it’s lost forever. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 I'm volunteering for library and so don't have access to that information if the photographer is still living. I'll just leave this last sentence then as an appeal to visitors or an admin that this work is being done in the spirit of creating high-quality content for Wikipedia from an academic research library archives who have vetted this photo. Please leave this in place while my colleagues there, on vacation this week, check the data and perms to see what more they might provide. Thanks. Nigetastic (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigetastic: if you want to use that image, you will have to find out who the photographer is (or if it was a work-for-hire, the photographer's employer) and ask them to release it under, for example, a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Alternatively, you could approach the subject and ask if she would take a photograph of herself to release or ask a friend to take one. But there seems to be no valid reason to claim fair use of the one you've uploaded, because the subject is alive and could therefore supply a free equivalent (see WP:NFC#UUI). SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 Hello, Innisfree9867, all. For more details, the library could only offer to make an introduction for me to the president of NAES/American Indian Association of Illinois, but I don't expect a swift response. I don't see any benefit to holding the DYK nomination while I explore alternatives. I see that the photo has been removed, and I won't try to resubmit unless NAES or Faith herself can provide an something with a cleaner provenance. Thanks.Nigetastic (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Airline logos

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 -FASTILY 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned rastor image that was obseleted by a vector. The page has {{vector version avaliable}}, however given the way it is licensed (under public domain), I don't think this image needs to stay for attrbution purposes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Also nominating File:Air Senegal logo.png because that file is also in the same predicament. It was uploaded as PNG, then replaced by a SVG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2 Unlimited - Faces album art.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using two cover arts as visual identifiers for "Faces (2 Unlimited song)" may not comply with WP:NFCC#3a, no matter how different the covers appear. Furthermore, it also may not meet anticipations of WP:NFCC#8. I prefer the other (standard) artwork, which is widely found in most of global releases. Furthermore, the other (standard) artwork was also used for Belgian release; the band is Belgian. In other words, this UK cover art shall go. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup I can’t see how two different images can both be the primary means of identifying the item. Reasonable explanation of which to choose. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the other cover art better anyway. Delete. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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