Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 23

November 23

File:MachineReadableIndianPassportCover.JPG

Orphaned, low quality photos of an Indian passport. High quality alternatives available at c:Category:Passports of India. ✗plicit 04:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chambéry Airport logo.png

The complex logo (?) is loaded over the simple one without changing the license. Not to mention that in the source it is now .svg. — Ирука¹³ 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EleanorDaley.jpg

Public-domain alternative (File:President John F. Kennedy Meets with Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago and Daley's Family (1).jpg) exists. I have substituted this photo's previous use with it. SecretName101 (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Man with the Golden Gun, wraparound cover.jpeg

WP:FREER — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a waste of time. FREER does not play any part in this farce. We have replaced one non-free image with another non-free image, not one iota of which comes under FREER. (Just for clarification, WP:FREER concerns itself with where "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent". Where one non-free replaces another non-free, FREER plays no part, whether in deleting the image from an article (along with other changes), or with a deletion discussion where there is no non-free equivalent). When this was reverted from the article space, it was done under the rational of CSD F7. Looking at WP:F7, I am perplexed as to what part of this rationale is relevant here, given: 1. the image is not from an agency; 2. it is not replaceable by a free image; and 3. there is no invalid fair-use claim. The rationale given for this deletion is a false and—given the context—a disruptive one. This discussion should be archived and the image should be allowed to remain on WP as a non-free image.
Although both images (the old and the new) are non-free, the new image shows the whole cover, which actually manages to show the whole book title, not less than half of it, plus aspects of the illustrations that are referred to in the text - aspects that look ridiculous without actually showing the whole cover.
I have asked user:Iruka13 why they think FREER plays a part in this, but they firstly refused to do so and since have been unable or unwilling to offer up an explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A blindingly obvious keep. See Template:Non-free book cover: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question … qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States". I can't say I like the cover much, but its use here ticks every box for admissibility under Wikipedia's rules. Tim riley talk 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although in the case of most books just the obverse would suffice, the dust cover of The Man with the Golden Gun is implicitly intended to be taken as a single work, with the obverse and reverse both containing the same information (i.e., title, gun) as part of an integral whole. Consequently, this version of the dust cover is the more representational. As for WP:FREER, it's absolutely spurious. The first sentence of that paragraph is "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." The Man with the Golden Gun was published in 1965, so even if the cover art were anonymous it would not enter the public domain in Britain in 2036; due to the URAA, there are similar implications for the United States. Richard Chopping, the artist, died in 2008, which means the cover art remains in copyright until 2079. There are no "free" alternatives available or potentially available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? — Ирука¹³ 15:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13, is there any chance you could explain yourself a little more clearly? The lack of clear communication is not helping. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can explain. Your (three) behavior. You didn't read the paragraph I refer to to the end. — Ирука¹³ 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisco, I think these comments are aimed at you. If you can understand them, can you explain to the rest of us, as Iruka13 had declined to clarify what they are supposed to mean. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the paragraph beginning "Another consideration for "no free equivalent" are "freer" versions of non-free media," you are clearly not understanding the content - and in fact I already argued against the possibility of the half-cover being used, if that is what you intend. The example provided speaks to the possibility of a dual copyright, wherein an item is copyrighted and an image of it is also copyrighted. You could feasibly have a point that one could purchase a first edition and scan the cover, thereby removing any possibility of the three-dimensional aspect incurring a new copyright (as alluded to below), but that does not remove the fact that any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do a bit more explaining. Keep in mind that this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Iruka13, but I do not understand what you mean. What paragraph? What is the link to the image supposed to demonstrate or explain? - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't look at the nickname. Wasn't replying to you. — Ирука¹³ 16:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13, Is there any chance you can communicate more clearly then. To whom were you speaking (it would possibly help if you pinged them) and what were you trying to say - they will possibly be as mystified as I am by your method of communication. Explaining more fully may help end this constant back and forth and let people focus on your perceived issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. These people are distracted by you. You removed a template that you shouldn't have removed. But now these people will learn something. In 7 days. — Ирука¹³ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t be bothered to explain why you have posted a deletion based on a false rationale, then this is going to end (rightly) with it being closed with the image retained. (The reason I removed the notice was because it's so obviously a false rationale, one I initially thought was just someone being disruptive: I am still not convinced that’s not the case, given a. the rationale is patently false, as several people have explained to you and b. you are being evasive and obstructive in not providing a proper explanation.) - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Iruka does when his images are falsely set for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 15#File:Bartaman logo 2023.png.

What SchroCat does when his images are falsely set for deletion: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑.

The people above have already tried to explain it to you three times. Judging by your reaction, they have failed. What are my chances? — Ирука¹³ 11:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? People are trying to explain to you where you are going wrong on this. Others—including me—have asked you to explain what you are on about, but you have declined several times to write a coherent response explaining why uploading a non-free book cover to replace a non-free book cover is wrong in your opinion. I am still awaiting a proper description in understandable English (and not just a link to a picture) which explains your position on this. This obfuscation and obstruction is disruptive for other users, and you need to address it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The full cover is one image with the title of the book extending from rear to front. It would not adequately illustrate the article to use half (or less) of the image. The snake's skull shown on the rear cover refers to an important plot point in the novel, so it actually provides commentary. In any case, this image follows the non-free image rules and, as others note above, no free or "freer" image is available, so WP:FREER does not apply here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the very good arguments above. Cassianto^Talk 17:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is wasting editors' time when someone whose fragmentary English is unintelligible seeks to engage En.Wiki editors in frivolous arguments. Tim riley talk 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been made aware of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Problems with obstructive and uncommunicative editor. I am not sure if this is what the filer envisaged, but the issue I see with this image is that the panoramic angle at which the dust cover has been photographed goes beyond the mere two-dimensional reproduction intended by {{PD-Art}}. Therefore, there could arguably be a photographic copyright at play, which would indeed violate WP:FREER. A flat photo of the dust jacket would serve the same purpose, without this potential additional layer of copyright concern. Felix QW (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing some clarity into the discussion (although I'm not sure why this couldn't have been explained by the filer earlier). As Nikkimaria pointed out above, this is a "this is a 2D work, which means reproduction do not garner their own additional copyright under US law", so I'm unconvinced this needs to be considered long. This is also in line with Chris Woodrich's comment that "any reproduction is copyrighted and fair use". - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Felix's point is that, if we were to use an image like Fandom's, the terms of FREER would be better satisfied as there would be no possibility of the 3D positioning creating its own copyright. As I mentioned above, the three-dimensional aspect could incur a new copyright (as alluded to below), which is the concern. Personally, I prefer flat views just in terms of bang for one's buck, but I know some book articles have been illustrated with 3D views on the past – generally without hullaballoo. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely prefer using the Fandom image, as it serves just as well and resolves any lingering doubts anyone might have regarding photographer's copyright. Felix QW (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sweat of the brow that would provide any basis for secondary copyright, but I've added a new version to bring this to an end. Much of this could have been avoided if Iruka13 acted in a slightly more professional manner and discussed things with people rather than refuse to explain. (By contrast, it's taken no time at all to sort once Felix QW and Crisco explained, which is something Iruka13 needs to take on board. Being obstructive when several people ask a straightforward question is not constructive; I can see why several other local Wikis and Commons have had enough of them.) - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]