Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30[edit]

File:LambieHirshhorn.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (3d artwork) FASTILY 02:07, 30 April 2017 (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:Consolidated Aircraft Logo.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: add to article. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused no encyclopedic use FASTILY 08:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not be used in the infobox in Consolidated Aircraft? But is the logo out of copyright? If not, should be converted to fair use czar 04:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the original uploader accidentally replaced .png with .jpg when they tried to insert the image. A previous discussion decided that the file should be {{PD-US-no notice}}, and I could not find any registration of this logo in a search. Therefore, Keep and add to article --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:38, 30 April 2017 (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:Confederate Lot on the NRHP.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. Plaque is {{pd-simple}} (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (plaque) FASTILY 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second time this has been questioned. Previous discussion was withdrawn. I am the editor who published the photo in both the HMdb.org website and Wikipedia. I am the one who took the photo and posted it to both places. I even noted on the Wiki page that I used it on HMdb.org. Has a GNU Free Documentation License. User: hoteltwo Hoteltwo (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoteltwo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you took the photo. The problem is that you may have taken a photo of copyrighted content, which means that you may not freely publish this image under any license you choose. -FASTILY 02:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with the NPS on any copyright they may hold. Their response is: "We (the National Register of Historic Places) do not have a problem with taking photographs of plaques and posting them wherever you choose." As to the entity that purchased the plaque, or the manufacturer of the plaque, I believe that is going to the extreme. Carrying this thought further, would mean that thousands and thousands of photos taken basically in the public realm, would be perceived as copyright in this instance and come close to violating freedoms granted in the 1st amendment.````

The plaque is all text, so it doesn't contain copyrightable elements, no? czar 05:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:30, 30 April 2017 (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:Eastbourne pier 1870.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: convert to {{PD-UK}}. ℯ xplicit 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 given the many free images on the article, but this could be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Could the uploader check if there was any copyright notice on the playbill? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no copyright regarding the image on the playbill. Surely, however, as an 1870 engraving, it is out of copyright? Furthermore, to my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't consider a front-on photo of a work of art to have it's own copyright. Also, "given the many free images on the article" - erm, this is the only image of the pier in the 19th century used in the article. It therefore has a unique place, given that the article covers the history of the pier. Malick78 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cannot see any reason to doubt this is {{PD-UK}}. The original dates from the 1870s and has no author I can find, it's later re-publication does not affect the copyright - Peripitus (Talk) 11:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we're talking about an engraving first published in 1930 (not 1870) as long as we have no proof of prior publication or authorship. There's nothing stopping an illustrator from depicting what they thought a place would look like in 1870. czar 03:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Czar, you say 'first published in 1930'. Why do you use the word 'first'? I see no reason to make that leap. A theatre bill is unlikely to have paid someone to make an original engraving of a previous view of a building. If it says 1870, I would assume the engraving was made in that year or soon after, not 60 years later. You're right, there would be "nothing stopping an illustrator" from doing that, but it seems unlikely given the style of the engraving, which is basic and not as elaborate as would be the fashion in 1930. 1870 is most plausible. Malick78 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (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:Camilo Jacob Historical Marker at Polangui, Albay.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 3D works in the Philippines FASTILY 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What about works by the government?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:50, 30 April 2017 (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:BavarianSportsBadge.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (badge) FASTILY 08:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:05, 30 April 2017 (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:Windows 8.1 PC settings app.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in violation of WP:NFCC articles 1 and 3. More specifically:

Its contents can be (and has been) adequately explained with text alone.
Its presence is redundant to File:Windows 8.1 PC settings app.png which is already on the same article and is non-free.

— Codename Lisa (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2017 (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:LadyVb&W.jpeg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 09:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image has "uneducated uploader" written all over it. In my opinion, Wikipedia must require its users to take a copyright exam before giving them the right to upload anything. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2017 (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:Yaqeen Ka Safar Title Screen GIF.gif[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: speedy delete as F7 by BU Rob13. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an animation instead of a still image does not represent minimal use of non-free content, thus violating the NFCC. Besides, I doubt International Editor Shah created the title screen of the TV series himself, putting the "source" information in the non-free use rationale in doubt. Huon (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2017 (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:NYC-summons-redesign.pdf[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. If the file falls under the scope of {{PD-laws}}, then a fair use rationale is not required. ℯ xplicit 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new summons itself is not discussed in the article. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file is listed under {{PD-laws}}, so your comment appears irrelevant. Furthermore, it is discussed quite prominently, so in addition, your comment appears false. This document is an official accusation of criminality by the State, and serves as notice and as the charging document submitted to the court--it is an edict, not following its command is a crime. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (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:THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING.pdf[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: speedy delete - F10. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear encyclopedic value. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tonga2000OlympicsStamp.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two freely licensed image in the article Postage stamps and postal history of Tonga so this fails WP:NFCC#1 and should be removed and deleted. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2017 (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.