Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26[edit]

File:Black ICE-White Noise Soundtrack.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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Black ICE\White Noise#Audio. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, so there's really no justification of its non-free use. Finally, the album cover is basically the same as File:Black Ice, White Noise cover art.jpg, so there is also no justification for non-free use per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The album is used for illustrative and educative purposes, just like with other video game articles with released music albums such as Tempest 2000. Though the product related to it (the game itself) was never released, the album was officially released by its current copyright owner (Kelp Entertainment) to the public years ago. Do The Math (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how being released to the public years ago is relevant, unless you're trying to claim that the album cover is not non-free content, but rather should be licensed as public domain. If that is, by chance, what you're stating, then please provide some more specific justification as to why. Typically, content following within the public domain does so because it is either too simple or too old to be eligible for copyright protection. This seems to obviously be above the threshold of originality for the United States and was released in 2007, so I don't think it's in the public domain. Please note that being released to the public does not automatically make something public domain.
  Otherwise, the cover art is going to be treated as non-free content which means each use of it is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file isused, and this particular use has problems with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Can you clarify how you think this particular non-free use meets those criteria?
  As for other similar files being used in other similar articles, trying to justify non-free use in such a way is not really helpful as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE since often it's the case (as is the case with the cover art for "Tempest 2000") that the non-free use in these other articles is also not compliant with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm...I see. Well, i guess its better to delete it then. Do The Math (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, used only in a decorative manner with no critical commentary or valid use. Salavat (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2018 (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:Abelard Sign.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was F4, but was told that was the wrong approach for older uploads which may actually be own work. The concern here is that what's shown is a 2D sign. Is the stylised A simple enough to be below the threshold of originality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (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) 07:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per c:Commons:Threshold of originality#Canada. TOO in Canada is quite high, comparable to the US, and "OK for most logos". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sign is ineligible for copyright and there is a clear statement of authorship. (The uploader says "This is a self-created image of the Abelard School Sign".) --B (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2018 (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:Psilocybe graveolens.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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image is from a user-authored image site - https://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/64347 - where users can pick a license at upload. (The CC at the bottom is not just a blanket statement for the site - it means that it was picked for this image in particular - their terms of use say that users are given the option to pick a license and, indeed, from clicking around I found an image with a non-commercial license.) But this image has emblazened on it "(c) D.D.K 11-09-09 all rights reserved". So do we accept the license as valid? B (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2018 (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) 07:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "All rights reserved" is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license. Copyfraud is taking place to either direction. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (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:Photo of Indrajith Sukumaran.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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of own work is not credible. This is obviously a professional photo shoot for an actor. A different crop / colouring of the image appears on the actor's facebook page wwith a posting date of June 12, 2016 which predates this upload. Whpq (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost certainly a copyrighted promotional photo. Salavat (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2018 (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:Subrat Dutta in T for Tajmahal.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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Subrat Dutta. Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Additionally, fails WP:NFCC#1 as the stated purpose only says "Still from the movie T for Tajmahal" and that film is listed in the filmography so the fact that this is a film part of Subrat Dutta's work is adequately expressed with text. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fair use image used only in a decorative manner with no critical commentary or valid use. Salavat (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2018 (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.