Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

September 6[edit]

File:Owl Andeh.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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn - the statement of permission is sufficient. --B (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image description page attributes this statement of permission to the author: "This image, including the alpha channel, may be used, edited and reproduced freely." But an archive.org snapshot of the source website - http://web.arcehive.org/web/20060426131011/http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/7147/home.html - has no such statement of permission. B (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but the current version of the page quoted as hosting the PNG version does have this statement.[1] Thincat (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, withdrawn. --B (talk) 13:00, 6 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:Sarah Khan.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 ⚡ 08:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

promotional image of a notable individual, no EXIF, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 21:14, 6 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:Association A and B.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 ⚡ 07:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Boxes A and B connected with a line. No encyclopaedic value is evident. DBig Xrayᗙ 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 13 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:Not Half A Human 2018.webm[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 ⚡ 07:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to: Talk:Alex Fridman#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

Non-free web film uploaded in its entirety for use in Alex Fridman#Social activity. The movie is five minutes long which seems to a problem per WP:NFCC#3. It might be possible to upload an few-second clip or a screenshot from the movie, but I can't see any real justification for uploading the entire thing for much in the same reason entire audio or video content seems to generally not allowed to be uploaded per WP:NFC#Multimedia. The movie itself is also not really the subject of any sourced critical commentary to provide the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8. If the movie was discussed in reliable sources and content reflecting that is added to the article and supported by citations to such sources, then perhaps a screenshot or small clip might possibly be justified; however, once again I don't think even the presence such content would be sufficient justification to upload the entire movie. Apparently this movie was first uploaded to Commons, but was deleted as a result of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. There's a claim being made in the file's non-free use rationale that creator(s) of the movie have the movie been "OTRS confirmed", but that was not recognized at Commons. Further discussion about this is ongoing at WP:MCQ#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm where two OTRS volunteers have re-affirmed that the permission emails received are not sufficient for OTRS verification; so, that means this most likely needs to be treated as non-free content, which means it needs to satisfy WP:NFCC. The MCQ discussion is starting to drag on, so I figured it's best to start a discussion here to see if a consensus can be established regarding this file's non-free use.

For what it's worth, an alternative to deletion might possibly be to either add an external link to the official website for the movie (if one exists) to the "External links" section per WP:ELYES or use something like {{External media}} to embed a direct link to movie into the article body. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew WP, talk pages are not deleted, even if the article or the file are deleted.
The issue is the Israeli law or WP criteria, what is prior?
The Israeli law entirely allows uploading the film, because it was made as a matric work by a scholar whose name was May Moran, and she signed an OTRS for this film.
Commons did not accept it due to a headline from Ynet, which stated that there was an agreement between the Israeli government and the disabled people, which Alex Fridman was one of them.
The headline consists 57 words, a date (29 September 2017 – the evening of the Day of Atonement), an hour (2:48 am!), the name of the reporter Amir Alon, who stayed there the whole night, and a cut photo of Fridman, while the whole article in Ynet had 1,125 words and 12 photos. Without Ynet title, the film is meaningless, because nobody could know if Fridman succeeded. Fridman did not have his own newspaper, and Moran relied upon Ynet headline
External link, even to an official website, would not help, because it does not void the issue of the Ynet headline. If the link was to Fridman's official website, you would say that you did not see the permission to show the Ynet headline in Fridman's organization website. If the link was in Ynet's website (and Ynet has already published this film in its website), you would say that you did not see the OTRS confirmation of Ynet for putting its headline in the film about Fridman and displaying it in the Ynet website.
Therefore I said that only the Israeli law solved this issue by determining that a matric work is free of copyright limitations, otherwise Israeli students could not study anything. When I said it, I was blamed for making a "legal threat", although I pointed out that only the Israeli law may solve the issue, not WP criteria
A screenshot of the film says nothing, because it does not reflect the struggle of Fridman. The headline from Ynet is a part of his struggle, and the Israeli law permits it. Dgw (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Hebrew WP, talk pages are not deleted, even if the article or the file are deleted. is most likely in reference to my comment here. File talk pages of non-existing file pages tend to be deleted per WP:G8. You can added {{G8-exempt}} to the file's page, but whether the page is ultimately kept depends upon the reviewing admin. I've seen file talk pages tagged with "G8-exempt" still deleted. They might indeed do things differently on Hebrew Wikipedia, but the policies of Hebrew Wikipedia are not applicable to English Wikipedia.
  When I said it, I was blamed for making a "legal threat", although I pointed out that only the Israeli law may solve the issue, not WP criteria likely refers to last sentence of my post here. I wasn't accusing you of making a legal threat; I was only pointing out you need to be careful when discussing legal matters anywhere on Wikipedia and provided links to some relevant pages on the matter.
  When it comes to non-free content use on Wikipedia, the relevant policy which is used to determine whether a particular use is acceptable is WP:NFCC. Israel law may allow the uploading of the movie for educational purposes, etc., but the Israeli Government does not own and operate Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. There is lots of fair use content that US copyright would allow to be uploaded and used on websites, etc. for educational purposes, which is not considered acceptable for uploading to Wikipedia per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been established to be more restrictive than the US concept of fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. If exceptions to NFCC are not automatically made for US copyright law (the Wikipedia and Commons servers are located in the US), then is seems unlikely that an exception will be made for Israeli (copyright) law.
  Wikimedia OTRS is Wikipedia's and Common's way of verifying the licensing of content uploaded to Wikimedia Foundation servers; OTRS doesn't have any authority to tell other external websites what content they can host and other websites aren't required to have OTRS verification for the content they host. It's possible that WP:COPYLINK or WP:ELNEVER might be an issue regarding adding a link to the movie to the article; however, that is not a really a justification to upload the entire movie to Wikipedia as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The non-free content is the Ynet headline which runs a second, and is allowed by the Israeli law, not the entire movie which runs five minutes, and was OTRS released by Moran and Fridman. I did not understand exactly how I had to be careful when discussing legal matters anywhere on Wikipedia, because it seemed to me as an attempt to put WP criteria prior to law, and copyright is determined by law. Dgw (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it is permissible to use this video under Israeli law, or any other country's law, that doesn't mean we can use it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own rules for what types of content are acceptable and those rules are stricter than the applicable law. This is part of our commitment to being a free encyclopedia. If the video contains non-free elements then we have to consider it under our fair use rules, and I don't see how this video meets the contextual significance requirement. It is only mentioned in a brief unsourced caption. Even if that caption was necessary to the reader's understanding the video could be replaced by a screenshot of the frame it's talking about, so it isn't minimal usage. You could upload an edited version of the video without the copyrighted elements and in that case you would not need to rely on fair use provisions. Hut 8.5 08:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The video does not contain any copyrighted element, because the Israeli law exempts it as a matric work. Therefore it is considered a free content in Wikipedia, which was made for educational purposes. Ynet has already made a commercial use of this video by advertising it in its website, and putting commercial advertisements prior to the video. If Ynet used this video commercially, although Ynet definitely did not create this video, Wikipedia could use this video for educational purposes, mainly when the Ynet headline runs for a second. Without Ynet headline, the video is meaningless. Therefore I am not allowed to cut it, and I guess that Moran and Fridman would be upset if I did so. You have to bear in mind that they released it, and I do not have to hurt them. Moran's father has also been involved in a road accident, as she told to Ynet, and it was the reason of her commitment. Moran got an excellence award from her high school for this film, and I sent it to the OTRS team. If the film was "illegal", school would not award Moran. I may add some words about the film and its plot, and would not do so if the film deleted. Dgw (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content which is only available for educational use is not free content. To be considered free content here it needs to be available for reuse by anyone, for any purpose, not just educational purposes. As you have been told before this is not a question of whether the video can legally be used by Wikipedia, it is a question of whether using it complies with Wikipedia's policies on media licensing. Hut 8.5 08:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipedia, not Commons. I wrote nowhere that the content was free. I asked about WP:NFCC#8 and got no reply. You ignored also Moran's award. Dgw (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the film won an award may be something worth adding to the article if it can be supported by citations to reliable sources, but it doen't mean uploading the entire film would be justified per NFCC#3, NFCC#8 or even WP:NFCC#1. There are quite a lot of Wikipedia articles about award winning films, etc., but that doesn't make it OK to upload the entire work or a really long clip of the work as non-free content. For example, for songs which are Wikipedia notable enough to have articles written about them, generally only a few-second clip is considered acceptable, per WP:NFCCP. Adding sources critical commentary about the film or a particular aspect of the filmaking process might help resolve the NFCC#8 concerns for a screenshot or small clip representing that content, but it still would make it OK for the entire film should be uploaded as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a high school award (according to Dorian Gray Wild), it means nothing for notability. --Gonnym (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Commons DR determined that it is not free, and it does not comply with WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is not Commons. This logo is not free neither, and has been used in the English Wikipedia since 29 January 2014, in spite of there is a "free" logo of the Technion. Please notice that a "rendition" is not allowed on Commons. It may be allowed in 2026, not now. You did not reply if adding a description of the film in the article would solve the issue, regarding WP:NFCC#8. Yesterday Fridman made a new film about him, talking about new things. I asked him if he wanted to show it in Wikipedia, and he refused. It seemed to me that he was quite upset, because he knew about this discussion and did not want to read it. Dgw (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the file is not free. As such, it must comply with policy, but it does not. Adding a description will not resolve the issue with criterion 8. Other images have no bearing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that all the media in Wikipedia has to be free. It is Wikipedia, not Commons. I did not get a reply why adding a description will not resolve the issue, and other images show that there is no policy. There is not even a discussion there. Dgw (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All non-free media must comply with NFCC. A description is not independently sourced critical commentary. Removing the file from the article would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of Fridman. Additionally, since it is not in English, an English reader, the target audience, gains nothing by including it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I suggested to write in the article the background of the film and its content, because it solved both WP:NFCC#8 and English readers. The description is definitely a critical commentary. Dgw (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a venue for Friedmen to show his films; so, if he's upset about not being able to do that, then perhaps he should look at WP:WPNOT. A description of the film is not necesarily sourced critical commentary; it could be more of a plot summary which doesn't require any non-free image to be understood. If the film itself is notable enough to write an article about it per WP:NFILM, then perhaps that is what you should do. That might make it easier to justify the non-free use of a screenshot or short clip if such a thing is needed in support a particular aspect of the film making process (see WP:FILMNFI), but again this would not require uploading the entire film. As posted above, I think it might be possible and better to instead add a link to the official website of the film as an WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorian Gray Wild: It's best to keep all discussions related to this file's non-free use here on this page so as to avoid problems with WP:DISCUSSFORK as pointed out by Gonnym. If you want to let others know about this discussion, you can provide a link to it on relevant talk pages using Template:Please see or a brief message as long as you don't violate WP:CANVAS. There's no need for you to keep copying-and-pasting each comment made in this thread on talk page like Talk:Alex Fridman. The people posting in this thread didn't post there, so there will be no record of the posts they made in that page's page history, and it might mistakenly lead others to believe that they should post comments regarding this file's non-free use there instead of here. Other editors who are interested in this discussion can click on the link and read this thread; they don't need you to provide a sort of Wikipedia play-by-play on other talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is non-free content, and in its current state, the usage fails to meet WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it has to be a non-free film, then it's not suitable here as per Whpq Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:15, 12 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.