Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

File:Sophie Hawkins - As I Lay Me Down.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. Whpq (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image was only used for promotional purposes in the United States, and the standard artwork for most of the "As I Lay Me Down" single releases is already present on the song's article. One of the UK formats features a similar artwork, but it is still much different than this one. I believe deleting this image will not negatively affect the readers' understanding of this article, because since it was not distributed publically, very few people will recognize it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:51, 14 March 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:Vaanmathi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as File:Nesam Pudhusu.jpg: just a black background and simple white text. I believe it should be labelled as public domain rather than fair use Kailash29792 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to pd-logo and copy to Commons. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 14 March 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:Ullal City Council Building.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. Whpq (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged for no evidence of permission which was reverted twice so thought FFD might be a better avenue. Uploader initially uploaded the image with no license and provided the source as http://www.ullalcity.mrc.gov.in . A license of {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} was subsequently added and the source removed in between reversions of the request for evidence of permission. Salavat (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless copyright holder WP:CONSENT can be verified by WP:VRT. For reference, there does seem to be freedom of panorama for buildings in India per c:COM:FOP India; so, if the building is still standing, it can be photographed without needing to worry about the copyright status of the building itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Marchjuly says, India has FoP that covers buildings so this would be a replaceable file with one that would be truly freely licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 15 March 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:Karl Through the Trees.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still copyrighted for at least another 47 years per c:COM:US. Should be converted to fair use if there is a need to keep this. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Arny Karl. Salavat (talk) 02:11, 16 March 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:Karl Windswept Sierras.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still copyrighted for at least another 47 years per c:COM:US. Should be converted to fair use if there is a need to keep this. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Arny Karl. Salavat (talk) 02:12, 16 March 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:Karl Blue Moment.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still copyrighted for at least another 47 years per c:COM:US. Should be converted to fair use if there is a need to keep this. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Arny Karl. Salavat (talk) 02:12, 16 March 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:Girl From Nowhere Season 2 Netflix Poster.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. The bad licence tag was a result of vandalism to the file description page, which has simply been reverted. (non-admin closure) --Paul_012 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded under improper copyright. It's claimed as CC/own work, but it's the copyrighted promotional poster for a Netflix series, with no evidence that the uploader had any legal standing to waive Netflix's existing copyrights. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free poster and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense per Salavat and a simple revert to the initial revision by uploader would have sufficed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:56, 15 March 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:Karen Parker in 1985.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a previously published photo, there should really be VRT permission from HRIN, who claims to have taken it himself in 1985. However, since that user's contributions end in 2014, it is sadly unlikely that this will reach him. Felix QW (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 02:13, 16 March 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:KayeSt.Bees.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: Relicense as non-free for use in Cecil William Kaye Whpq (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image not in the public domain in the US until 2034, since its UK copyright will have expired 2009 at the earliest. Felix QW (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free biog pic and add to Cecil William Kaye. Subject died in 1941 and there is no free image currently on the article. Salavat (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support that. Felix QW (talk) 17:04, 15 March 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:Kemsing Well Dressing 2014.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the standards of c:COM:FOP UK, this seems to me to be a 2D graphic work, rather than work of artistic craftsmanship. Therefore this seems to be outside of UK freedom of panorama provisions and require permission from the author(s) of the mosaic. Felix QW (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics tend to be covered under works of artistic craftsmanship. I'd be a Weak Keep for this based on that. If found to not fall under FoP in the UK, it should be converted to a fair use file. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, the only precedent of what is clearly described as a mosaic that I have found in UK FoP Commons deletion requests is one that was deleted in 2013. Felix QW (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably have to do an undeletion request for that. This DR says that mosaics are covered under FoP in the UK. c:Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales. c:COM:FOP UK says "In Hensher -v- Restawile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. " Mosaics are made from hand-painted tiles. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that one, Abzeronow! There seems to be very little actual copyright case law to go on, so Commons precedent is best we can hope for.

On that basis, I withdraw the nomination. Felix QW (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also filed the undeletion request you suggested. Felix QW (talk) 20:12, 19 March 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:Kene (Naga wrestling).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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The own work claim with its accompanying license seems to have been made in error. However, I would like the opinion of those more versed in matters of non-free use on Wikipedia to assess the non-free use claim also attached to the image. Felix QW (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a mislabelled non-free file. Kene (Naga wrestling) seems to still be an active form of wrestling for a free alternative should be pretty easy to obtain. This image also doesn't seem to be of any historical significance either so I don't believe it could be kept on that basis. Salavat (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFCC#1, as anyone participating in Kene (Naga wrestling) could provide a freely licenced image of the sport in action. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 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:SeawaterGreenhouse ScienceMuseum London 2011(3).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 ⚡ 06:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United Kingdom. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, not sure what the problem is here. I too the picture myself. Anything you need? Raffa be (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Raffa be: When you take a photograph of someone else's creative work, there's a good chance that what you're doing is creating a WP:Derivative work in which there are mutliple copyrights that need to be considered. If, for example, you walk outside you door and take a photo of the moon in the night sky, then the only copyright that is relevant is the one for the photo since neither the moon nor the night sky are eligible for copyright protection; on the other hand, if you walk out the door and take a photo of a poster, billboard, sculpture or in some countries even a buidling, then you may also need to take into account the copyright status of whatever you photographed. It probably doesn't matter if you keep your photo to yourself, but uploading it to Wikipedia under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts requires that the entire work be 100% free. Under UK copyright law, there's no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works as explained in c:COM:FOP UK; this means that copyright status of the placards you photographed also needs to be 100% free for the photo to be OK to upload to Wikipedia. Things are even further complicated by the fact that the placards themselves might be derivative works since they have textual content as well as photographic content; this means that there could be separate copyrights for each of those elements that also need to be considered. Can you provide an additional information about the provenance of the placards other than what you've stated in the file's description? If you can, then perhaps that could help clarify their copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 15 March 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.