Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 5

September 5[edit]

File:WLNY New York 55 2023.svg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. No evidence this is actually the logo of the station Whpq (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not found at the given source, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure how something, particularly a logo, can be said to be both CC-licensed and "This copyright was belonging to everyone." (Granted, this would almost certainly be a {{PD-textlogo}} well below the threshold of originality anyway, but I've also yet to see any solid evidence that WLNY-TV has actively switched to this logo.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewscastStudio says the station has debuted (or will debut) a new logo. If anyone in the NYC area is watching WLNY-55 right now, do you see any change in branding? TheCatLife (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elgin-WWII.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the description on the file page, the uploader and the creator of the image are not the same person. There is no evidence that the creator released the image under a free license. — Ирука¹³ 09:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File page: Digital image from the Tim Davenport collection

Uploader's userpage: best, Tim Davenport

As noted in my edit summary removing the F11 tag, this is not a statement on the file itself; watches sound like exactly the sort of thing where there's some arcane status putting things technically in copyright (though as I've seen Premeditated Chaos note on WT:DYK a lot lately, clothes don't have that, so watches might not either -- will see if she knows anything specific). It is a statement about doing your due dilligence. Contrary to your rather strange reply when I politely informed you of a mistake many newer patrollers make before learning, people are expected to double-check something's status before nominating it for deletion. There is a long and complex history regarding files in particular (this thread is an interesting summary of some past issues), and repeated rapid deletion nominations both without checking context and while actively saying you don't need to is something with an ignonimous precedent. Vaticidalprophet 09:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume a watch would be the same type of utilitarian object for the purpose of US copyright law. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree regarding the watch, which doesn't seem to have any particular separable artistic quality to it (see also c:Commons:To_be_utilitarian_or_not_to_be_utilitarian). I must say though that Digital image from the Tim Davenport collection is an odd way of crediting oneself as the photographer. One could be collecting all sorts of things one hasn't created. Felix QW (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the uploader and creator of the image are the same person. jp×g 21:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alejandro Scopelli.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Whpq (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the photo was published before 1989. — Ирука¹³ 09:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scan of a newspaper photo. Scopelli was an active player in the 1930s. Newspapers in the 1930s only existed in the form of printed, published pages. Italian newspapers in the 1930s had no reason to post a US copyright notice, being produced for Italian-speaking locals and not for export to the United States. Obviously, a logical person will conclude that this photo was published for a news story in the 1930s when he was on the team. Therefore, it was published well before 1989, did not have a US copyright, and is in the PD in both Italy and the US. It is a waste of everyone's time trying to "gotcha" people on AGF public domain cases like this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full source, publication date and authorship information should be provided. — Ирука¹³ 22:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the argument for there being "no evidence" here makes no sense to me, per what PMC has said above (it is obviously a newspaper scan from the 1930s). jp×g 21:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sherlock Holmes Portrait Paget cropped.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 17:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unused and, judging by the edit history, never used, easily reproducible image. — Ирука¹³ 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial photograph of Westdene, Johannesburg in 1952.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 08:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South African copyright will not have expired before 2003, late enough for the image to have been caught up in URAA restorations. So it seems it will be copyrighted in the US until 2047. Felix QW (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bubble and Squeek, from the cartoon.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 08:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon is claimed to be in the public domain since its copyright was not renewed, but as it is a British production first published there, that is not relevant. While I do not know the death date of creator George Moreno Jr. the cartoon is unlikely to be in the public domain in the UK and is certainly still in copyright in the US until 2043. Felix QW (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Italian minesweeper Crotone.jpeg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Whpq (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough information to conclude the image's license status in its country of origin. — Ирука¹³ 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you questioning the claim of the NHHC regarding its status? It has a typewritten caption that states it was originally an ONI photograph (Office of Naval Intelligence). It passed FAC image review by an experienced image reviewer without any questions. The Naval History & Heritage Command states that it holds copyright over the image, and given it was an ONI image, that is hardly surprising. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What country's citizen took this picture? — Ирука¹³ 22:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A US Govt employee. The image is one from the Office of Naval Intelligence, the intelligence agency of the US Navy. If you read the typewritten caption at the NHHC link, that is obvious. For clarity I have changed the license to the PD-USGov one, although I am sure the NHHC PD-Because licence was also fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken by a citizen of the country in which the ship was based. The citizen gave the picture to the US Govt employee. — Ирука¹³ 02:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of that claim. All that is necessary and relevant here is the image caption, that it is an ONI photograph. Kges1901 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, and the unsubstantiated statement that a photo of a ship outside the US was taken by US employees - even intelligence - in 1938 is a good reason for using c:COM:PCP. — Ирука¹³ 03:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peacemaker's and Kges' comments here and Buidhe's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galeb-class minelayer/archive1, where I have absolutely no doubt any licensing concern would have come up. FAC image reviews are...not softhearted. Even if the image's licensing status in a non-US country mattered and it wasn't PD there, enwiki permits PD-US images that aren't PD-elsewhere -- what evidence do you have that all of these apply? Vaticidalprophet 05:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep English wikipedia's servers are located in the US, so what matters is the US copyright status, and that is very clear. Commons does have different rules. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by others, ONI caption is enough evidence. Italy only had a copyright term of 20 years for simple photographs so if Italy mattered here, it's public domain there (and thus the US). Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale that there could hypothetically have been a government-wide conspiracy to lie about the origin of the photograph, while physically possible, is not realistic or convincing. jp×g 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the conspiracy here? This is how intelligence works in reality, not like in the movies. Or did someone in the government tell you that it was their employee who took the photo, and I’m trying to prove the opposite? Or for you, all materials stored in the archives of government agencies automatically become materials created by their employees? — Ирука¹³ 23:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The typewritten caption for the image, at its source, says AREA 12. ITALY - GENERAL. "Crotone" (Ex-German M-120; ex-Italian Abastro). German M1-176 class Minesweepers. Photo dated 1938. ONI (Op-16-P-5) #318-233. ONI stands for "Office of Naval Intelligence". Are they lying? Why would they lie about this? This makes no sense. If nobody who uploads photographs to Wikipedia can ever be trusted to be the photographs' authors, why don't you start an RfC to remove all images from Wikipedia? jp×g 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely and utterly believe in what you wrote in green. Where exactly in this quote does it say that the photo was taken by their employee? — Ирука¹³ 23:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a language barrier issue or what, but I do not understand what you are asking for. The image credit says Photo dated 1938. ONI; the meaning of this sentence is clear to an overwhelming majority of English speakers. jp×g 23:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for you it means “made by ONI.” To me, this means “located in ONI’s archive” under such number. — Ирука¹³ 00:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just for clarity. The reality is that in 1938, the Italians were still conducting "show the flag" cruises throughout the Mediterranean (as was the US Navy to some extent), and the US had naval staff and attaches attached to their diplomatic missions in many Mediterranean countries, and this could easily have been taken by a US navy employee on a visit to any Mediterranean port, be it Taranto, Malta, Corfu etc. What is your alternative hypothesis that supports your contention it is not PD in the US? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have alternative hypothesis. Your explanation is pretty good. But it is a theory, just like mine. — Ирука¹³ 05:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some backstory that most of those participating in this discussion probably aren't aware of. Iruka has doesn't like {{PD-Because}}, for reasons that aren't clear to me. That's what this is about.
As a general point, ONI didn't take all of the photos it collected for ship recognition purposes; many of them were acquired commercially, because that was simply expedient. For example, this photo states that it came from the ONI archive, but it almost certainly was taken by Bar or Bougault. Here's another that says it's from ONI, but the image itself has a credit to Bar written on it. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Union Station art.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works of art in the US FASTILY 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on Commons, c:Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Gregory Ackers this is a 1987 mural. No copyright registration for this from the artist. It is yet to be determined if this mural was published according to the Copyright Act of 1976 definition of publication before March 1989. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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