Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30[edit]

File:Vinicius16.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, uploader has history of copyvios – Train2104 (t • c) 00:24, 30 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:EfremAPOEL.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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, uploader has history of copyvios – Train2104 (t • c) 00:24, 30 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:PierosAPOEL.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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, uploader has history of copyvios – Train2104 (t • c) 00:24, 30 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 Time Bird.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cover only consists of plain red and black text on a plain yellow background, so it is ineligible for fair use. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons per nom. As said, yellow background is very plain; so is the title layout. George Ho (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to PD-simple and move to Commons. Salavat (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have relicensed the file to PD-simple. The file should be moved to Commons as well. DBZFan30 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 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:Front page.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows Commons, and looks like a scanned images from a third party publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 30 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:WernerHerrmann.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: no consensus. Therefore defaulting to keep. This has been open for almost a year now, and editors are still unable to agree on this image's copyright status. Clearly the point of diminishing returns of this discussion has long been passed, and the possibility of somebody claiming copyright of this 1940s German military file photo appears remote in the extreme. Sandstein 08:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is "free" for commons purpose, Uploader seems to be considering as PD because it came from captured records. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its from Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) at the National Archives. All of that material is public domain and free to reproduce [1]. This was previously discussed at File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg. I pray hope we do not have to discuss it again. :-o -O.R.^Comms 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the previous OTRS ticket a general one? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OTRS was specific to SS files; however SS and Kriegsmarine are both part of Record Group 242. I received information this morning as to the specific registry entry in the National Archives that contains the U-boat material. It is listed in their computer as "unrestricted, use restriction - none" meaning no copyright or trademark restrictions. Per their research staff, these are public records freely available to reproduce. I added this information to the image page as well as the address to verify the image. If that's still not good enough, we could ask one of their archivists to send a permissions e-mail, but I kinda think that would be overkill at this point. PS, I have two other photos from the U-boat files. I'll wait a week or so to upload to allow any further comments on this thread. Thanks for your diligence policing these images; we certainly do need to make sure everything is in order. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be closed? Stagnant now for over a month. I've also since verified this is all available through the National Archives and cited as such on the image page. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly from the National Archives, record group 242 which is completely open to the public without restriction (action or use). Should not be an issue to keep the image up. -O.R.^Comms 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - Assume it to be non-free. Tried looking up sources but came up empty. Also, it was not seized by Office of Alien Property Custodian, like Mein Kampf was. Also, the US government or the War Department is not the creator of the photo. Per URAA, copyrights of German works have been restored. Therefore, assume the photo to be copyrightable and protected by URAA. Nevertheless, the man is assumed to be born in 1920, making this person a very old man. If the person is deceased, and no free images are found, we would have it undeleted at WP:REFUND. However, if the photo is proven to be owned by the Alien Property Custodian Office, maybe undelete and then tag it as free but not transferable to Commons due to copyright at Germany or the European Union. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is clearly given as record group 242 from the National Archives with a website and address given in Alexandria, VA to verify. Per the archives own listings, these are public records with no copyright restrictions. As a last resort, we could ask for a permissions e-mail, but with what's already been provided I am hoping this can simply be closed as Keep. -O.R.^Comms 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist this, but this requires more expert review, especially as the OTRS ticket seems to be lacking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed this morning that the National Archives and Records Administration sent an e-mail to Wikipedia confirming that photos of submarine captains from Record Group 242 (Foreign Records Seized) are not under copyright and are free and public to reproduce and use on this site. The specific research historian who contacted Wikipedia did not receive a reply (yet) so I do not have an OTRS number, but do have a copy of the e-mail. I hope this resolves the question about this U-boat photos. -O.R.^Comms 13:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OberRanks: Can you forward that email to [email protected]

, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I received confirmation that the e-mail was forwarded to the address provided. It was apparently sent to another address last week as well. -O.R.^Comms 18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, it appears to be ticket:2017011910017637, but hasn't been processed yet czar 08:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: waiting for OTRS processing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS agent: I looked into the ticket mentioned above and after checking with an OTRS admin, it appears that if there was an email sent as that ticket, it was most likely lost by being unintentionally deleted as spam, as it no longer appears in our system. So there is the option to contact the organisation again, or to have User:OberRanks resend his original email to <[email protected]>. In a strict sense, we are not exactly accepting a permission statement here from the National Archives, given that from what I read of the copied email on File talk:WernerHerrmann.jpg, they seem to be just providing information to clarify what was already found on their file page itself. If an email is sent to us again, please post on this discussion and I can verify it came from someone at the organisation but other than that I don't think OTRS has anything else to contribute to this. I leave this up to the admins to determine if the arguments for PD are strong enough with/without a statement from the National Archives. seb26 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 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:Der Landser U-boat war by Franz Kurowski.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 ⚡ 11:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale for this image has been challenged, hence I'm nominating it for discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader. I believe that fair use rationale is justified in this case for Franz Kurowski, as it significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the topic of "Landser-pulp" literature that the subject of the article produced. The subject has fashioned himself as a "historian", but it's much clearer from the image that this piece is strictly militaria literature aimed at those interested in details of uniforms, insignia, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons I gave at File talk:Der Landser U-boat war by Franz Kurowski.jpg (I tagged the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} but the uploader moved it here for further discussion). I just want to add that however the author fashions himself is not really relevant to the non-free use of this image. It is, however, possible that some of the photos used by Kurowski in his books are public domain images and there's a whole category of WWII German submarine images found at c:Category:World War II submarines of Germany and sinking ships found in c:Category:Sinking ships, which might be used if desired. The way the images are arrange by Kurowski is likely copyrightable as a WP:Derivative work even if the images he used are PD. Showing this particular images does not prove that Kurowski is not a "historian"; it simply shows that he used some WWII photos and other imagery in this book, and the reader certainly does not need to see a non-free image of the inner page of a book to understand such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to copy a partial caption into a body section. Therefore, that content is preserved. Meanwhile, the usage of the page excerpt image is too excessive, and the readers would well understand the article and the person without the image. Also, there is already an image of the author in the infobox. George Ho (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per George Ho, excessive and not needed to understand the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 27 June 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:Swearing in Ceremony of Anthony Byrne MP as Parliamentary Secretary for Trade , 25 February 2009.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Wikiuser50 (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - quality issues aside, this image is meant to be used as a visual identifier of Anthony Byrne (politician), a living person, and is thus WP:F7 eligible. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The picture is too small. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:43, 30 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:All Lights India International Film Festival.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Querying if this is in fact a third party logo, It's not simple. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 30 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:TheCubanAssassinWrestler.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. Copyright status not quite clear enough; even if you owned the photo it's very possible that the company ended up having the copyright if they commissioned it Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting source information, would require OTRS to confirm that he was indeed the designer (and even then, as a work-for-hire, the copyright goes with the employer) – Train2104 (t • c) 15:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I designed, wrote and edited the magazines only distributed at the shows, they were entirely my creation, of which I never gave up the originals or the copyright. I have the original photos and this is a scan of it. The company Can-Am Wrestling went out of business in 1999. RamshackleMan (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because you did work for the promotion doesn't mean you own it. Your "creations" were done while employed for them. Therefore the property would be of Can-Am Wrestling or whoever the owner was. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can-Am Wrestling no longer exists and does not own this photo. I took it myself, as I took hundreds, they claimed no ownership of the photos, which is why I am in possession of them. The magazine was also mine, and my own, It was never copyrighted or owned by them. The former owner(s) of Can-Am Wrestling may not even be living, let alone familiar in the slightest with Wikipedia in regards to an 18 year old photo. Even if I owned the company, what proof could I possibly provide on this page. Anyway it is redundant, as the photo is mine. Can-Am would have paid me, the creator, for usage of my photo, not for the rights to it. I retain the photo and the rights. RamshackleMan (talk) 01:23, 31 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:Hebah patel zee cinemalu awards 2017.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 as F9 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a social media photo that predates the Wikipedia upload. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:46, 30 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:Mister Movie 2017.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 as F9 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a copyrighted poster, no evidence that the uploader owns the rights. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:48, 30 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.