Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 13

April 13

File:MetroJet.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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image that is no longer the only image of its kind (jet and colorations), being supplemented by a comparable free image in the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have nominated it for F7c. House Blaster^talk 20:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gwinnett County Seal.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: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 04:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright tag on this image is only valid for works by the US Federal Government, not from individual states (such as Georgia). I also believe it is slightly above TOO, so I support deletion. House Blaster^talk 20:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeremy Dewitte.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#FUR_for_living_person?. Dewitte is a living person, and the image is not so defining that another could not be taken of him to identify him. I don't think this is an correct use of fair use. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (As uploader) because I think all 10 of the WP:NONFREE / WP:NFCCP criteria are met:

No free equivalent could be created. No free ones exist, except arguably a mugshot, which was objected to, so I replaced it with this. He is in jail, so getting a photo seems an unlikely ambition.
This does not harm any realistic commercial opportunity
It is used once only, i.e. minimal use
It was previously published, (in an online newspaper)
It does not breach any content standard
Likewise, with regards to image use policy
It is used in one article
Importantly, it lets the reader understand something that cannot be conveyed with words. Without the photo readers are likely unsure to what extent his police impersonation is a thing. This photo clearly demonstrates that. To me that is the main thing here that separates it from every other BLP photo
It is used in article mainspace
The source is detailed.

So please, don't just say it doesn't meet fair use. If anyone wants to justify deleting, say exactly how it fails, with regards to the criteria. I note the comments in the link above "I'm not convinced by the fair use rationale...but don't know that much about image copyright". CT55555(talk) 00:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it is generally accepted that while a person is living a free equivalent could be created. I disagree that it cannot reasonably be conveyed through words that somebody impersonates a police officer. Otherwise you could make the argument, for instance, that any person who is best known as an actor needs a fair use image of them in costume to clearly demonstrate what they look like. Which would certainly not fit under our understanding of fair use. Check, for instance, WP:NFC: "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people", and a very recent discussion about a very similar topic. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a helpful clarification. So as it is criterion 1 that we are discussing, I quote it: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.. Therefore I guess the question is: could I have got a photo of him, dressed like this (i.e. presumably doing the crime he is in jail for). Because that is what I would need to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". I contend that I genuinely have zero chance of getting a photo of Mr Dewitte dressed like this, because that would be impossible due to his incarceration additionally asking him to do this might be conspiring to commit a crime, and is impossible anyway, I have no means to communicate with an incarcerated person. I think it is reasonable for me to assert that it is not possible to get a free version of a photo that serves this purpose. CT55555(talk) 01:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, you edited your reply as I typed mine. I think this situation is really unusual and this weird set of circumstances (a need to see how he dresses, in relation to the reason he is notable) is truly both unique and a barrier to me getting a free photo. Not sure if this is helpful context, but I've written hundreds of biographies. I have never used a photo like this before, because I've never felt there was encyclopaedic value. I may be repeating, sorry, this is really an unusual set of circumstances. CT55555(talk) 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 (due to original comment I'm replying to being edited) The discussion linked above is only half relevant. The barriers of jail are relevant. The unlikeliness of getting a photo of him dressed in a unique and probably criminal way make this a different scenario. CT55555(talk) 01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we disagree on the encyclopedic value of the picture here. I don't think there's a particularly unique value served by a picture of him dressed like this and a picture of him in general. But we'll see what the consensus is, I guess. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the crux of the issue and where we disagree. Likewise, I'll pause here and see what others think. I appreciate the civility of your disagreeing. CT55555(talk) 02:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for three reasons: firstly, the image was downloaded from the Daily Mail, which has been deemed an unreliable source by the Wikipedia community, twice; secondly, the image as it appears on the Daily Mail web site is itself unsourced, so we don't know to whom it belongs; finally, it's not a very high-quality image. While I agree that a photo of DeWitte impersonating a police officer is both helpful to the reader and amusing, I don't think it should be this photo, and I think it's uncertain provenance might expose the encyclopedia to problems down the road. I also think that the specifics and extent of DeWitte's habitual impersonation could be described more thoroughly in the text of the article. — Matuko (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for context: I would never use the Daily Mail as a source of words, but as a source of a photo...it is clearly him, having spent time to try to chose the photo. So unless anyone has any doubt that it is a photo of him, I think it's OK to use for an image.

On quality of the image, it is normal to reduce the file size when using a non free image, so that is more a consequences of complying with the guidance than anything else. CT55555(talk) 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Before explaining my !vote, I just want to clarify that fair use and non-free use aren't the same when it comes to Wikipedia; Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be much more restrictive than fair use and its best to not mix the two terms up.
As for this image itself, I disagree that this image adds significant encyclopedic value to the article, particularly as the main infobox image. There's nothing about this image that allows primary identification of the subject of the article: the image of someone in a police uniform with their face almost completely obscured from view by shadows and a helmet offers very little in terms of iprimary identification value and WP:FREER (WP:NFCC#1) doesn't limit a free equivalent to being another image but also covers text. So, I think that someone being arrested multiple times for impersonating a police officer can be more than sufficiently understood without needing to see them dressed as such. The closet I could come to any possible justification of this as non-free use might be item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI in which this image would be treated similarly to cover art featuring the subject of the article, but moving the image from the main infobox to the body of the article still wouldn't be enough to justify the use of this image per WP:NFC#CS. The only possible direct reference I could find to this image seems to be a single sentence about Dewitte being accused of "wearing a shirt with a police badge, a bullet-resistant vest and a helmet with a police-like badge while he worked a funeral procession", but the image doesn't come from the source cited in support of that content and it's pretty much a simple descriptive sentence that I wouldn't consider to be sourced critical commentary about the image per se. In addition, trying to use this image as a representative image of Dewitte as a police officer also doesn't work too well since there are a number of different images of him dressed a police officer in some way (at least according to Google Images). If pretty much all media outlets are using this image as the one go to representative image of Dewitte whenever they report on him, then perhaps an argument could be made in favor of its non-free use; that, however, doesn't seem to be the case at all and trying to assert that this particular image is more representative than any other image seems (at least to me) more like a case of WP:OR and WP:SYN than not.
One last thing is that Dewitte was arrested in Florida, and Florida is one of the few US states for which works created by employees of state, county, municipal and other local government bodies as part of their official duties are considered (with some exceptions) to be within the public domain and can be uploaded and licensed as {{PD-FLGov}}. This means a PD photo of Dewitte may actually be easier to find than perhaps it might be if he did his impersonating in some other US state. While there might be BLP reasons (e.g. WP:MUG) for not using such a photo in the article, that's not really a justification for using a non-free one. Articles aren't required to have images, and plenty of BLPs don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Large coronal mass ejection on 2000-02-27 from SOHO LASCO C3 coronagraph.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: Unclear copyright status, defaulting to status quo (non-free). -FASTILY 22:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White-light coronagraphs can be illustrated with STEREO images, [1] which do not involve third-party copyrights. Therefore, this image is likely not eligible for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO data is in the public domain, as it also belongs to NASA who are obligated to place all such data into the public domain. For LASCO in particular, the Naval Research Laboratory's page on LASCO data use states that use of this data is "completely open and unrestricted", and I have confirmed its status in the public domain through private communications with the PI of the NRL operated Sun Grazer Project. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO images have consistently been deleted from Commons because their copyright status is unclear. Because such images are joint NASA and ESA works, the latter's copyrights also have to be taken into consideration. ESA works are not automatically PD unlike U.S. government works, and those images have not been explicitly licensed for commercial use, so we can't assume they are free. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images of comets, for example. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the only sources cited here pointing to SOHO data being in copyright limbo is from the SOHO copyright notice and ESA Multimedia/Image Copyright Notice. The former is merely a suggestion, and the latter applies to the ESA image gallery only and not SOHO data generally.

I believe the text in the SOHO Science Operations Plan explicitly states the data's status in the public domain; see "The science processed data will be public after an initial period of restricted access." and "The intent of the SOHO data access policy is to provide data to as wide a community as possible and as soon as possible. [...] The goal is to make fully callibrated data available for public use through ESA and NASA archives one year after reception by the PIs."

Also, as a side note, SOHO data is treated as public domain in the literature.

CoronalMassAffection (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find. Page 31 does say "Ancillary, summary, event and synoptic data will be in the public domain immediately after acquisition." If that data includes images, then they'd be in public domain. Perhaps this should be revisited on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to table 3.6 images are part of the summary data. C messier (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've opened a new discussion on Commons at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Revisiting SOHO images. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The STEREO and SOHO copyright notices on their respective nasa.gov websites are nearly identical. Building off of the now archived discussion at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#Revisiting SOHO images, does the silence on commercial use in STEREO's notice imply no permission is granted for commercial use as it apparently does for SOHO? Or since it is solely NASA data is there an underlying public domain license described elsewhere? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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