Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26[edit]

File:One of our aircraft.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of our aircraft.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:DocuSign logo new.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DocuSign logo new.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:LADbible-logo.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LADbible-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:USCaratese.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:USCaratese.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:James-Treble.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James-Treble.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg[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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. There, an SVG format is considered "copyrightable" due to the format itself. However, the logo itself is too simple for copyright, and it contains just "jaeger kahlen partner" in lowercase. Maybe the transparency makes the version copyrightable? Still, if uncopyrightable, the logo should be moved to Commons. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started the thread at MCQ because I came accross the file being used in someone's sandbox. It seems simple enough to be PD to me, but Graeme Bartlett made an interesting point about the svg format and copyright status. Note that there was something about svg and copyrights also being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg and there's also been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Vector images of non-free logos from unofficial sources and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Non-free images and SVG. Not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but Graeme Bartlett did suggest that re-uploading the file as a png would resolve the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes if you convert to a .png format it would definitely be eligible for PD-Simple or PD-Textlogo. I assume that the .svg file came from an official source, and so copyright would apply to the code. As a sample line, the .svg has "path d="M6.838,178.518h2.464v2.114h0.053c0.339-1.281,1.782-2.563,3.567-2.563c3.901,0,5.377,3.591,5.377,8.714" and there are about 60 more like this. So I suspect copyright applies to this. Transparency has no effect on the copyright as its application is not creative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia However the permission does not extend to third parties. So it might be copyrighted at the same time it might not be as its a text logo Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission of the copyright holder is not needed for the file to be licensed and non-free content or as public domain to the best of my knowledge. A {{Trademark}} template can be added to the file's page; however, if its design is too simple to be above the threshold of originality of its country of origin]], then I'm pretty sure it's not copyrightable. Even if this was copyrightable in its country of origin, it seems more than simple enough to be below the the threshold of originality of The United States and may be possible to keep locally on Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay.. let's make it "PD-ineligible-USonly" then if impossible to transfer to Commons then. George Ho (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What was the consensus at Commons on SVGs being copyrightable? Relevant to whether we import there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further follow-up!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Intellectual property protection of typefaces#United States, However, in 1992, the US Copyright Office revisited its 1988 decision, and determined that the latest digital outline fonts in fact had elements that could be protected as software.[4] Since that time, the Office has accepted registration of copyright for digital vector fonts, such as PostScript Type 1, TrueType, and OpenType format files. An SVG file is comparable to a 'digital vector font' and may therefore be copyrighted as computer software.

If the uploader used a pixel version and just told a program to create an SVG file, then the file probably isn't copyrightable as computer software.

If the uploader manually created or modified the SVG file, then we probably need the uploader's permission.

If the uploader started from a vectorisation created by the company, for example a PDF file, then we probably also need the company's permission.

If this is copyrighted as computer software, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could create a freely licensed vectorisation of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The svg was generated by Adobe Illustrator, so the source code is not copyrightable as software as it could potentially be if a human had used creativity and skill to design it. A computer - deterministically based on the text it was fed - created this source code and if you or I or anyone else goes into Adobe Illustrator and uses the same font to type the same words, we will get the same output. So the only question is whether the underlying text is copyrightable. As for the 1992 regulation concerning the registerability of typeface, our article completely misstates what the regulation says. The regulation says that previously, if you wrote a computer program that rendered text, you were required to explicitly disclaim the copyright of that text in order to register your copyright. That ridiculous requirement was removed in 1992, but it doesn't mean that the text, apart from a computer program, is registerable. Our article is simply wrong. A complete TTF font is probably copyrightable is computer software, but there are plenty of text logos where courts have ruled that the logo does not pass a threshold of originality. This logo is, for example, fare less complex than the Best Western logo. --B (talk) 18:48, 23 October 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:Futurewar Screenshot from Cyber1.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: no OTRS ticket located. Deeletion is without prejudice to reupload if permission ticket is forthcoming Nthep (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims to be the copyright holder in the licensing tag, but this is a screenshot of a video game, "PLATO's Futurewar (1978)," credited to Erik K. Witz, Nick Boland et al. in the description. —Bkell (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it, can get this freed up by copyright holder, whom I know and one of whom was with me when I uploaded. What do I need to do? Zelchenko (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zelchenko. There are instructions at either WP:OTRS or commons:COM:OTRS, saying that you must ask the copyright holder permission to use this with a compatible license. ~~Also, it says that you must forward the permission to the OTRS service.~~ --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 19 July 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) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-correction - I stand corrected: the copyright holder must directly write permission to the "permissions" email address. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any progress??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not an expert in all of this information indirection -- if there is a specific e-mail that the copyright holder must send an e-mail to, please help me clear this by telling me what that e-mail is. Sending an infrequent content editor into the depths of Wikipedia to spelunk for arcana is not usually going to elicit good follow-through. Zelchenko (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 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:Town magazine covers 1960s.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town magazine covers 1960s.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Town magazine covers 1967.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town magazine covers 1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:CriminalMindsPromo.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CriminalMindsPromo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:SavannahSquares.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: relisted on 2017 September 20. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SavannahSquares.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:SavannahSquares2.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: 2 months without futher comment Nthep (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no foreseeable use, original map copyright status unknown Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that @PurpleChez: has commented on the talk page. Pinting them here as the place to comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus...here's what I posted at the other spot....

Hi! Got notice that this file is "listed for discussion," where it is tagged as having "no foreseeable use." For reasons I still don't understand the firewall on my work computer blocks images in wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure which of these images it might be, but many years ago I created several schematics that are still utilized in the Squares of Savannah article. I'll follow up at home when I can see more, but please let me know what I can do to clarify this. Thanks!!!PurpleChez (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:05, 26 August 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:Nicobar troopship.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work given user's other uploads from news websites. Low resolution. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Train2104 truly disappointed to hear this, whereever i posted from i mentioned website name & link but this one i clicked from mobile camera, which is why it looks low resolution to you. I can not satisfy you any more. thanks Joydeep ghosh (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:06, 26 August 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:Scotts Run, Tysons, Virginia rendering from North.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 - for time being. Does not appear to fail NFCC#1 yet but probably will as devlopment progesses Nthep (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Scotts Run, a mixed residential / commercial development in progress. As state in the article itself, one commerical, and one residential building has already been completed. As such a free replacement can be had. Whpq (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two buildings completed so far are not representative of the overall project. This project will have up to 24 buildings, some nearly 400' high. The first two completed are shorter, near the edges of the project, and have no public spaces. Until some of the core buildings have been completed, which is planned for 2019 or 2020, the artist rendering is far more representative of the project's scope. Perhaps a different fair-use reason is appropriate? If you do a Google image search on "Scotts Run Tysons" you will see this same image used in several news articles and informational sites. It could be that this image was intended for promotional purposes. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it makes sense to have a picture of the current Scotts Run development in the infobox, and this image can be used, along with written commentary on its final form—that's attributed to a reliable third-party source. As it is though, its use for identification can be replaced by a free image and there's no contextual significance. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone rides Silver Line they may be able to take a reasonable photo from the platform at the McLean station. From there it should be possible to capture the current construction area with a big "Scotts Run sign in the front and the MITRE 4 building in the background. Unfortunately, the ideal spot for a photo is right in the middle of Dolley Madison, which is not very safe. Moving the existing photo down to the "Description" block does make sense as it gives a good overview of what the entire project will look like when completed. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Made a photo yesterday of the sign while stopped at a traffic light. Just updated the article to make that the topline photo and moved the overview drawing to the history section with some expansion of the section. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:07, 26 August 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:Sumana Secondary School.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: convert to non-free. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

school logo, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use as logo is more then likely owned by the school. Salavat (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:08, 26 August 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.