Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28

File:Raquelchalfi2.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raquelchalfi2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

doubt this photo is the uploader's work. Looks like the resolution was already reduced for web publication on the pre 2007 internet 1Veertje (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (was ~~Weak keep~~) Without proof otherwise, I have no reason to doubt this rationale. It looks like a photo taken with an old, pre-smartphone camera phone, so it's definitely plausible as being the uploader's own work. Have you done a reverse Google Images search? If no other websites include it, then it probably is the uploader's own work. If they do, and they're not Wikipedia mirrors, then, on balance, I'd lean weak delete. Doug Mehus T·C 02:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This actually looks like a crop and a reversing of a much larger image shown here (look at the sign imagery in the background) and a flipping of this cropped version shown here. While it's unclear whether the website showing the larger uncropped photo is the original source of the file, it does also make me a bit skeptical about the claim of "own work" being made by the uploader. This file was uploaded back in 2007, but that's still not really old enough to be meet c:COM:GRANDFATHER; so, the flipping/cropping of the image does raise some questions as to its provenance. The uploader was a WP:SPA who only made a few edits to Raquel Chalfi back in January 2007, and has not edited (at least with the same account) since then. They might have uploaded the file in good faith, just assuming that downloading it from somewhere online and then reversing/cropping it made it their "own work", but that's not really what makes an image "free" or "own work". Even if they had claimed that this file is a WP:Derivative work establishing a new copyright owned by them, the copyright ownership/free licensing of the original source image would still need be verified by OTRS. If this was on Commons it would most likely end up deleted per c:COM:PCP or c:Template:Dw no source since. Wikipedia doesn't really have a local equivalent of either, but I think this is close to be covered by WP:F11 despite the claim by uploader of "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cropped and reversed from a

larger image, the claim of own work is dubious. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marchjuly's evidence, unless, of course, that blog owner is this editor, in which case, they should get in touch with the appropriate team to license the content to WMF, or change the licensing to CC-BY-SA. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:30, 29 January 2020 (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:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg

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 2020 February 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 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.

Non-free former CKQQ-FM logos

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logos being used in a decorative manner in CKQQ-FM#History which fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Non-free logos can sometimes be used, but the long standing consensus is that the logos themselves, not the former station, needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary for such non-free use to be justified. This was originally prodded for deletion, but deprodded here and here with the claim that these logos might actually be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. These files are related to the above Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg, but I'm nominating them separately because there's no way these would be considered to be PD per c:COM:TOO United States or c:COM:TOO Canada; so, they cannot/should not be converted to a PD license regardless and there's no way Commons would accept these files if they without the WP:CONSENT of the original copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wrong venue

(1) Non-free fair use is a perfectly valid rationale for English Wikipedia, and we should not be trying to steamroll logos to the Commons (not applicable in this case);

(2) the nom, while the nomination is in good-faith, provides no links to supposed consensus so we can properly interpret as to whether the consensus was overly broad as to apply in this case (note: the logos were converted from a separate gallery section to in-text references that provide contextually significant and concise history as to the station's history); and,

(3) it's not the proper venue because, frankly, this should be discussed at the village pump in order to obtain new, updated, and more specific and narrow consensus to remove all former logos of North American and, indeed, the world's radio stations in a series of mass, batch deletions. Cherry-picking these isn't the right approach, and I think Bearcat's input is warranted here, given that this is his area of specialty and he update, maintain, and create a lot of radio station articles (and I mean a lot). Doug Mehus T·C 22:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moreover, while these may not be appropriate for the Commons, and I agree with your nominating them separately, note that these logos have been used in countless local mass media articles and blog posts, as allowed by Jim Pattison Broadcast Group's brand guidelines. Thus, while these are non-free, fair use logos, there is no reasonable likelihood of copyright infringement because, frankly, the radio station has permitted them to be used in press coverage, blog posts, for educational purposes, and the like. Doug Mehus T·C 22:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned in the above FFD discussion, FFD is the venue where file use is discussed. All you need to do to verify that is look at WP:FFD and any of the currently ongoing discussion or already concluded discussions to see that. This discussion, also as pointed out in the above FFD thread< is not about eliminating all non-free former logos from articles, but about the non-free use of these two particular files. If you want to start a discussion about about all non-free former logos being used in articles, then you can do so at WT:NFCCsince that's the relevant talk page for Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Finally, that the fact that a non-free logo (former or otherwise) or any image for that matter is being widely used on blogs or other websites really has nothing to do with WP:IUP or WP:NFCC. Wikipedia has no control over how other websites control image use and it really only matters in the case of non-free content with respect to WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough some random syntax. -- 08:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)][reply]
  - Marchjuly, Nevertheless, whether it gets migrated to the Commons, you're forgetting several important key things, namely that consensus can change and it may be time to obtain new consensus to clarify the policy; that that policy is a "broad strokes" policy which does not say that former logos as non-free licensing cannot exist in certain segments of articles (which is why I think we should refine that consensus); and, further, you ignore the fact that the radio station owner has licensed this non-free content to any entity which is writing about them. Thus, there's no reasonable prospect of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., being sued for copyright infringement because these logos are, appropriately, identifying the radio station in question in compliance with the license terms from the rights owner. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - This again seems like an argument along the lines of WP:NEVERSUE, which doesn't really address how these particular files are being used in this particular article, i.e. how their usage meets all ten non-free content use criteria. Moreover, while it's true that a consensus can change, there is no "consensus" yet established regarding the non-free use of these particular files; that's what will hopefully be established by this FFD discussion. Now, if you want to argue that the wording of WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFC#cite_note-4 should be changed to reflect some "new" consenus regarding all non-free former logo usage, then you should probably do that at WT:NFCC. FFD discusisons are about how specific files are being used under current policy/guidelines. There may be differing interpretations as to how said policy/guidelines apply, but this is not the venue to try and change the policy or guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marchjuly, Moreover, the fact that WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED, which is an essay, not a policy, actually suggests we have time on our side to establish, and apply, a new consensus with respect to all non-free fair use-licensed former radio station logos at the village pump or similar. If the community decides these are unhelpful, then you, or anyone else, is free to re-nominate them in one or more mass batch nominations such that our radio station articles would then consist of only the current logo. Time is our friend in this case, as is the fact that Wikipedia notionally has no deadlines. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stop pinging me in every post you make. I don’t mind being pinged per se, but you’re going a bit overboard at the moment. I have this page on my watchlist and will see when it’s edited. If there’s something I feel warrants a response, then I will do so. Right now, it might be best to give others a chance to comment before this wall of text gets any bigger.
      Anyway, as I posted above, this discussion is about the non-free use of these two particular files and how the current policy applies to their use; if you want to start a broader discussion about the usage of non-free use of former logos in general, then the place to do so would probably be at WT:NFCC. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, fair enough, but please note that reply-link automatically adds your username. I've removed it from this reply. Nevertheless, I've said my piece. We've both made strong cases. Doug Mehus T·C 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention this in my original nomination even though I was thinking about it as well, but another thing to consider here is whether both of these files are needed per WP:NFCC#3a. The bee imagery is essentially the same for both logos except for some minor non-copyrightable elements such as text and the fact that the bee is wearing a cowboy hat in the updated one. So, even if the use of one of these files is deemed NFCC compliant, two are not necessarily needed since there's no real improvement in encyclopedic understanding that is provided over the simple text "For the second anniversary of B-103, the station unveiled a new updated logo of the bee wearing a white cowboy hat on b103.ca." -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as these non-free images clearly fails our stated policy on non-free content as outlined in the nomination statement. We don't keep non-compliant content based on speculation that consensus on policy may change. As for TOO, the bees most certainly carry this into copyrightable territory so these would not qualify as PD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2020 (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.