Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 8

< March 7	March 9 >

March 8[edit]

File:Marian Ewurama Addy.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 -FASTILY 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously tagged Di-replaceable fair use disputed:

image can be replaced with the free license image File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg or File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy for Wiki Unseen (cropped).jpg" -- Nosferattus 12:21, March 7, 2022‎ (UTC)

This photo is per the guideline WP:NFCI#10. The Wiki unseen image is a recent selfpublished monochrome artwork by a netizen, it is not per guideline "close substitute" (or "equivalent" per WP:NFCC policy). The artwork states "Likeness taken from photographs", so let's use a photograph. If I understand Commons' rules correctly, copies made from copyrighted photos is not allowed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I started an article on the artist, Enam Bosokah. I still think the photo should be the WP:LEADIMAGE, but adding the artwork as well is fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to FfD to discuss. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two factors here: 1) Whether the drawing is actually free. A person's likeness is not copyrightable, so if a drawing is made based on many different copyrighted photos, such that it cannot be traced to the original expression of any particular photographer, then there is no copyright violation. 2) Whether the drawing is an adequate substitute. If I draw a stick figure and claim it represents some person, that is obviously not going to work, and it is OK to host a fair use image despite the existence of my free "alternative". In this particular case, however, I think the drawing adequately shows what the subject looks like and so it should be used in place of the fair-use image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not having access to the artist's inspiration-material (but there's a nice video at [1]), it's hard to argue copyvio. The drawing has clear differences with this photo, this is clear. 2) I don't find it "close substitute"/"equvalent" of the photo so I think the photo should be used. The WP:SPS-ness also bothers me (hiring an artist with WMF-money instead of just using a WP:NFCI photo, it wasn't hard to find one) but that may not be relevant. However however, I think there are WP:s that don't allow fair use at all, and that's a different situation. And of course Commons can be used outside the WMF-projects, so it can be seen as a "gift to the world" kind of thing. For some info on Wiki unseen, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/In the media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Unless there is a specific reason to believe that Bosokah's portrait is a copyright violation, that should not have bearing on the discussion. A quick Google search shows that Bosokah is an experienced portrait artist, not just a random person tracing a photo. Plus the description says that the likeness was taken from photographs (plural). The guidelines for the Wiki Unseen project state that "When you make drawings of a person based on photos, you can take them as inspiration or reference. But you must make sure that your drawing is not: a reproduction (the same image but in a different mean), a derivative work (a new work with many recognizable elements of the original)."[2] So I think we should assume good faith and take the copyright issue off the table. 2) Personally, I agree with King of Hearts that the portrait is an adequate substitute in this case since it faithfully renders the appearance of Marian Ewurama Addy and does so in a neutral and tasteful fashion. The quality of the portrait is in line with (or in some cases better than) similar illustrations used in other Wikipedia articles. If we allow the use of copyrighted photos in cases such as this, I think it undermines our fair use justification. My opinion would be to delete the copyrighted photo and replace it with the portrait. Nosferattus (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at Talk:Asquith Xavier#Request for comment on images in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~However,~~ I am unconvinced that the closely realistic portrait of her accurately depicts her. Also, the colors used to depict her are monotone, but I wonder what the portrait intends to depict her as. Is she supposed to appear motherly, serene, calm, and neutral? The live-action one is more accurate and gives out real, accurate colors especially of her clothes and her hat. Also, it helps readers contextually identify her more than the painting. Also, she looks directly at the camera and shows her necklaces. Unlike the painting, she's not wearing a pearl necklace. Furthermore, she appears (slightly?) feistier than what the painting depicts. George Ho (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The painting is not a suitable replacement, and if these paintings are going to cause issues with the use of fair-use images, then Wikimedia needs to reconsider the program. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject in question is deceased and there are no good free replacement photos that would depict her accurately. Per the other nominees, the painting is not a good suitable replacement for her as the painting is far more abstract than necessary. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that a stylized representation like this is not "equivalent" or able to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" as a photograph. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty and The Beast blu Ray.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 ⚡ 13:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of Blu-ray + DVD edition unneeded. There's already theatrical poster. Even when they look different, both a home video cover and a poster convey the same marketing and branding info and intent given to public. Furthermore, the text content already helps readers convey info about home media releases. To put this another way, omitting this Blu-ray/DVD cover still won't affect how the article conveys detailed info about the film and its releases. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per George Ho's rationale. The fact that the series has a home-video release needs no additional image, considering that the artwork is usually different than the theatrical poster anyways. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing cover arts[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: relisted on 2022 March 27. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing by Chris Isaak original 1995 single release.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing by Chris Isaak 1999 re-release.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Dream SMP cast.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: Presumably resolved, was converted to non-free -FASTILY 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dream SMP cast.png is supposed to be a replacement for File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg but unused since Dream SMP (diff 1075705442). No non-free template. This file is "A derivative work. Skins retrieved from https://namemc.com/.", no idea how official that is, and without deeplinks I don't consider it sufficient as I don't plan on searching that site for a bunch of characters to see if the uploader usernames can be connected to the actual people involved. Meanwhile File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg comes from https://www.etsy.com/listing/864331283/dream-smp-skin-stickers and I suspect Etsy is a garbage source for this. Maybe we can keep one these with a proper source and non-free template. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dream SMP cast.png is a replacement for File:Dream SMP IMDb Image.jpeg. Sahaib removed it because it isn't allowed on commons (see the deletion page), and suggested I make it local. I've forgotten to replace the image on Dream SMP (done now) when I uploaded it here. NameMC is just a database that reflects Mojang's that makes it easier to search. I've updated the file's description so that it's easier to verify which skins belong to who. Also, File:Dream SMP cast.png should be renamed to File:Dream SMP cast.png if this is the kept image. SWinxy (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy: can you indicate on the file page how the contents from NameMC reflect those of Mojang which ultimately reflect those of the Dream SMP cast? And just a technical note: moving is impossible as long as the file exists on Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the description with some more information (TL;DR NameMC is trustworthy as a mirror). Makes sense that commons files can't be shadowed locally I guess. The file on commons is marked for speedy deletion, so it should be deleted by tomorrow, in which case the file here can be moved. SWinxy (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palmcentrowikipedia.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, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shows non-free home screen. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photoshop ß.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: File is claimed as PD but this is obviously not true. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for this image. -FASTILY 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added image back to Photoshop's early history. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poabackside.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, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a screen capture due to low resolution and lack of metadata. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polkstreet.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, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is credited to a Justin M. McGrackin, but uploader's user page says her name is Jennifer. Copyright issues aside, the image is of low quality and not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Ixfd64. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palmoscentrowikipedia.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, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused picture of a screen that shows non-free contents. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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