Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26[edit]

File:Seong-Eun Ahn - eric harvard.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 ⚡ 02:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, no description, possible copyright issues (why upload such a terrible thumb? Likely copied from some website). Anyway, outside of project scope due to very low quality and showing a public building that likely already has many higher quality images on Commons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:03, 27 June 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:KingRecordJapan.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. Izno (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1950, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The vinyl side label was copyrighted in 1996 in Japan, so the US copyright of this foreign work was restored by URAA. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I'm afraid our terminology is mixed. I'm quite familiar with record labels, not so much URAA. What do you mean by "side label"? And by the 1996 date, do you mean the copyright for this specific label design was renewed 45 years later? Many thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: Well, I said "side label" because I couldn't tell whether the label is that of side-A track or side-B track. And yes, the US copyright was renewed forty-five years after first publication, especially since the vinyl single wasn't published in the US within thirty days after the first Japanese publication. Was it? Anyway, Japan joined the WTO in 1995, and the country qualifies for the URAA because it is a WTO member. Furthermore, the URAA restored US copyright for non-US/foreign works that lacked compliance with previous US laws, like requiring copyright registration and/or copyright notice. Japanese copyright of the label probably already expired, but the US federal copyright lasts 25 more years until December 31, ~~2045~~ 2047. Strangely, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in the Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. case that a first overseas/non-US publication of a work originally in a non-English language wouldn't constitute a US publication. Rather we would treat the image as unpublished in states of the 9th Circuit, like California, until either seventy years after a known author's lifetime (more unlikely) or 120 years after creation (i.e. December 31, ~~2070~~ 2072, meaning we would wait fifty more years) or a later release contains a copyright notice (very unlikely, considering that the record label didn't think about inserting a copyright notice). (chart, footnote) BTW, I can't tell whether the photo of a singer within the label is still copyrighted in Japan. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Thank you. I hope I'm not being annoying, I hope to expand my knowledgebase. Where did you find that this "vinyl" side (It's shellac, for what it's worth, but only a record nerd like me cares) was copyright renewed in 1996? Was the label itself renewed, or the audio recording that is pictured? I didn't mention, it is particularly important that this era of label be kept to differentiate it from the 78rpm King records that were being issued concurrently in the United States, although there is no relation between the entities. There has been some discographical confusion caused between them in the past. Thanks again! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: You weren't annoying ;). Anyway, according to discogs, the recording was first released in 1952. Furthermore, the URAA already automatically restored copyrights for most foreign works since that legislation passed back in the mid-1990s. No additional steps to enforce the URAA would be necessary, though the copyright holder can file the "Notice of Intent to Enforce" (list of NIE records). The copyright law of Japan seems to have provided copyright protection for native works without needing some kind of formality (CRIC). The label is copyrighted; so is the audio recording itself. The US copyright of the audio recording, already restored probably by the URAA, lasts 110 years after first non‑US publication, according to the Cornell chart, i.e. until December 31, 2062. Somehow, the exact release date of one record release (cat. #C-791; supposedly the US release) is unknown. Somehow, I found sources hinting possible US release of the Japanese version of "Tennessee Waltz" ([1][2][3][4]), or maybe the sources do not make a such hint. To make US copyright already lapsed, the record should have been published either prior to the first non‑US publication or within thirty days after first non‑US publication. As said earlier, either the exact release date of the US publication is unknown, or maybe the version wasn't physically released in the US. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is apparently not a generic, identifying image; it appears to be specific to the release. The logo itself should be used, whether extracted from this image or taken from another source with clearer resolution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not generic to the release. All Japanese King labels from that era (that I've seen, more than 100 examples, but it's not like they show up every day in the USA) have a picture of the artist. So in order to show a label from that era (and label styles are identifying material regarding pressing dates, and therefore of importance to musicologists/discographers) would have *somebody's* picture on it, there is no viable substitute. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheImaCow (talk) 12:54, 26 June 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:Spidermanep32.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: Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; no policy backed rationale to keep -FASTILY 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. There are several images of the figure in slightly different illustration styles; one at most is needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that it is "Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox" is not only dubious, it is based on a false premise; the character depicted in the image is not the same character as the one depicted in the infobox.--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One is "Rocket Racer in The Amazing Spider-Man #172" and the other is "Rocket Racer on 1990s Spider-Man: The Animated Series". How is that not the same character? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheImaCow (talk) 12:55, 26 June 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.