Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17[edit]

File:Marx generator.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Marx Generator.svg FASTILY 00:12, 17 September 2016 (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:Us senate result 1992.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:1992 Senate election map.svg FASTILY 00:13, 17 September 2016 (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:Us senate result 1994.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:1994 Senate election map.svg FASTILY 00:13, 17 September 2016 (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:Adamson colors.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace, superior version available: File:Adamson colors.svg FASTILY 00:14, 17 September 2016 (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:Colpitts ideal model.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superior version available: File:Colpitts ideal model.svg FASTILY 00:25, 17 September 2016 (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:Castle sign small.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 Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in Ireland. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish freedom of panorama is quite extensive. Can you provide a source, please, for the sign restriction claim? Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the 3D FoP for Ireland czar 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The laws in question appear to mostly reflect 3D objects, sure that it can be applied to 2D as well?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description of {{FoP-Ireland}} states:

"§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details."

Since photographs may be published of "works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place," this photograph of a hand-painted sign on a public road complies with the law.

In passing, I observe that the careless reference to UK law should not be included in the {{FoP-Ireland}} statement. Ireland and the United Kingdom are distinct nations, and the description of {{FoP-Ireland}} states clearly that this is merely an assumption, which has questionable legal value. — O'Dea (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (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:RSC Staircase.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 Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Focus and purpose of the photo seems to be the portrait of Lesley Yellowlees, which as a 2D graphic work isn't covered by freedom of panorama. Presence of the portrait seems to be more than de minimis. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image was taken at the Royal Society of Chemistry, a public building in the UK. The UK has freedom of panorama (section 62 of the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), which enables the image to be free in the country of origin, the portrait indeed being an incidental and minor part of the composition. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I took this photograph in a public building, it shows, among other things: perspective, the play of light from colored glass, paneling and a portrait. It was my intention that it could be used to demonstrate a number of architectural features. (Personal attack removed) Giano (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Portrait is subject of the photo, DM likely does not apply, making the file a derivative of non-free content. -FASTILY 05:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the portrait is not very big it is certainly the central element and focal point of the image. Its current use in Lesley Yellowlees article is clearly trying to evade the non-free portrait issue by pretending that the architectural aspects are important to the use of this image when in fact they have absolutely nothing to do with this subject and have no commentary about those elements shown. The portrait just happens to be hung there and editors would like to have an image of the subject for her article. The image is not being used to illustrate any architectural elements claimed to be important in the image for an architecture related article and I am sure if it were needed for that purpose it would be very easy to replace this architectural image with a different one that shows the other features without including a copyright image in it. BTW, Giano you should be less insulting, comment on your reasons to keep, and AGF. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: According to the law in question, FOP in the United Kingdom does not appear to apply to paintings. The de minimis is very marginal - commons:Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines has some "keep" precedents in #4 that may apply here, per Giano's argument as to the coverage of the image. Better to have more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fastily. Derivative work of non-free image, and from the use of the image it is an obvious end-run around copyright. Not going to be allowed. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again. I rather think you will find the image is now used in a number of informative ways in various articles. Giano (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides on Lesley Yellowlees, the image is currently used in the articles Commemorative plaque, Dog-leg (stairs), Handrail, Lantern, Panelling, Royal Society of Chemistry, and Stair carpet. It's admittedly far from indispensable in some of them; for instance, Commons has many images of stair carpets.[1] But on Dog-leg (stairs) and Panelling, this image adds value, showing something different than the others, and on Royal Society of Chemistry it's the only image of the inside of Burlington House, the headquarters of the Society. (Commons does have other images of the inside of the building, but this one shows a fine and unique aspect of the architecture.) Bishonen | talk 13:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC). P.S., full disclosure: I was linked to this discussion by The Lady Catherine de Burgh, who exhorted me to "keep intelligent women on Wikipedia". But I do agree with her ladyship. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Furthermore, this picture of a staircase (for that is what it is) is now the only image on the pages of the two architects who designed it. The image in the portrait is so vague and blurred it could be a portrait of Olive Oyl. There are many images on Wikipedia, taken inside "stately homes" showing numerous pictures and portraits - are they all to be deleted too? Just off the top of my head, we have photo of 10th Duke of Marlborough circa 1950 and bronze statuette cast in 1897, when did the sculptor die? - I could find a thousand more. This nomination is quite ridiculous. In future, are people only to upload images, the very moment that they wish to use them. I have frequently uploaded image for future use. I am currently working on a huge 3D plan of Buckingham Palace (so far 6 months work) can I only upload it seconds before I wish to use it? Giano (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God! delete immediately, there's even a painting here of Jimbo as a baby. Giano (talk)

Keep. per User:Bishhonan and agree also with - its a public building in the UK. The UK has freedom of panorama. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh dear. If that is an attempt to sneak a portrait into a photograph, then it is one of the most inept in the history of WP. It is quite impossible to tell who it in fact is. It is poorly placed, but it hardly dominates the pic, and it would be impossible to get a shot of the staircase, wall features and the window without getting some part of it in shot. Maybe we could pixillate the face out? Irondome (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The portrait is plainly not the subject of the photo, it is a photo of a staircase. I think the suggestion that this photo was taken to get around copyright in relation to the painting shows a regrettable failure to assume good faith. The portrait is de minimis. WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The portrait takes up less than 3% of the photo and is clearly de minimis, and the "focus and purpose of the photo" is clearly not the portrait. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2016 (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:Wyou 2008.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: Keep Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in WYOU. Logo is being used in the main infobox to identify the station and has a non-free use rationale for that particular use, so it's seems to be WP:NFCC compliant. My question is whether the actually needs to be non-free since it seems more like {{PD-logo}} instead. The text "WYOU" is not copyrightable, and the CBS Eye can be found on Commons as File:CBS Eyemark.svg. The only other elements are the "yellow line" and the color gradient, which seem to be {{PD-shape}}. The source url www.pahomepage.com/content/Meet_the_Teams_New is dead, but the logo still seems to be being used at www.pahomepage.com. Is there a reason this cannot be converted to "PD-logo" and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The eye may be pushing it a little.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status changed to PD-logo. Discussion should now be able to be closed and the image copied over to Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2016 (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:WBRE-WYOU Eyewitness News Logo 2012.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 Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in WYOU and WBRE-TV. File only has a non-free use rationale for WBRE-TV, so the use in WYOU does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10c. A non-free use rationale could be added for WYOU, but it seems that this logo is simple enough for {{PD-logo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Is the color gradient on the "News" part of the logo complex enough that this file needs to remain non-free? The source url is dead, but the same logo (without the color gradient) can be seen at the bottom of www.pahomepage.com and at www.facebook.com/eyewitnessnewstv. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions needed, the stylized background may be pushing it a little.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status changed to PD-logo. Discussion should now be able to be closed and the logo copied over to Commons. Salavat (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (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:Snowscene (small).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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader owns rights to 3D assets reused in composition. Most of their other CGI files were deleted for this ambiguity. czar 15:37, 17 September 2016 (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:Bathroom (Small).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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether uploader owns rights to 3D assets reused in composition. Most of their other CGI files were deleted for this ambiguity. czar 15:37, 17 September 2016 (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:Jack Van Impe.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a screenshot of a copyrighted video. The video is released under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported on YouTube, but the YouTube uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bitten by this before, by a Flickr user. Maybe I'm too gullible, or a slow learner. How do you know the youtube user isn't the copyright holder? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Copyright (c) 2007 Jack Van Impe Ministries" at 1:40:47 certainly makes a case against the YT user. Quickly looking through the website linked at the end of the video, I see no indication of CC licensing. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. I have no objection to removing this image. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2016 (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:Provenance1.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just one copyrighted image but 9 separate fair use claims in one upload. Clear violation of WP:NFCCP #3a. Majora (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2016 (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:Provenance2.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the subject of the sourced commentary. Image of Sonic game. Fails WP:NFCCP #8. Majora (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2016 (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.