Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 16

< January 15	January 17 >

January 16

File:Bluenov38.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nonfree magazine cover is being used to show what it looked like in the 30s but there is no source commentary about the magazine's cover style, just a list of artists. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Note that a free cover is in use for identification. Whpq (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient rationale per nomination. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (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:Lady Gaga - Bloody Mary (Clinton Sparks Remix) cover art.png

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, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an official single cover by the label. It was only used in a Twitter post by Clinton Sparks. Sricsi (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (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:Harry Lumley hockey.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 ⚡ 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear by what rationale this image should be PD in the US. The image was made in 1953, so even if published anonymously it would not have been PD in Canada by the URAA restoration date. Felix QW (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2023 (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:HarryBurgessChelseaProfile.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 ⚡ 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this photograph should be PD in the US. It was taken less than 95 years ago and was certainly copyrighted in the UK at the URAA restoration date in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2023 (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:HarryBurgessSheffieldWednesday.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 ⚡ 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this photograph should be PD in the US. It was taken less than 95 years ago and was certainly copyrighted in the UK at the URAA restoration date in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2023 (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:GumrahHumNetwork.jpeg

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 Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a freely licenced image, and not convinced that it would definitely be a valid fair use. If it's fair use, then the proper fair use template needs to be done, and if it's not a valid fair use, then it should be deleted Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a copyvio (obviously not the uploader's own work) before I saw this discussion. At the very least it's a non-free image of a living person so will fail anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2023 (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:Heil patent figs.png

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. Whpq (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This drawing is taken from a patent application by Oskar Heil. Although it is taken from the British patent filing, the original patent application was filed in Germany in 1934, and we can only presume that this is where the drawing was first published. In either case, as the author died in 1994, copyright would still apply in both the UK and Germany, and thus by URAA restoration also in the US. The diagram is certainly above the UK threshold of originality, and I would guess that it is also above the German and US thresholds. Felix QW (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the copyright laws with respect to patent drawings, in UK or Germany or otherwise. I thought they'd be in the public domain, but maybe not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep it as fair use to illustrate the main invention that Oskar Heil is known for? Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US patent drawings used to be in the public domain when copyright notices were still required, and there is still some uncertainty on when or whether this ceased to be the case. However, as far as I know this reasoning never applied to Germany or the UK and thus they all duly attained US copyright with the URAA restoration in 1996. Regarding fair use, I would defer to those more knowledgeable on this than me; one issue could be non-replaceability, since in principle one could make an independent diagram of the workings described in the patent filing. Felix QW (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2023 (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:Herbert Sutcliffe 1935.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 ⚡ 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is missing source information, so it is difficult to tell whether it is in the PD in the UK. However, it is certainly still copyrighted in the US per URAA restorations, since UK copyright would have certainly run into the 2000s. Felix QW (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2023 (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:R.E.M. - Losing My Religion.ogg

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. Whpq (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Losing My Religion and R.E.M. I wanna remove it boldly from the band article, but I figured discussion may be needed as the article is now FA-promoted. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in both articles since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in both articles. Aspects (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2023 (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:R.E.M. - What's the Frequency, Kenneth?.ogg

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. Whpq (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Monster (R.E.M. album), R.E.M., and What's the Frequency, Kenneth? I wanna remove it boldly from both the band and the album articles, but I figured more input may be needed George Ho (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in all articles since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in all articles. Aspects (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2023 (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:Nintendo - 1950.png

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. Determination of copyright status left to Commons. Whpq (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete it now? 93.41.126.48 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 93.41.126.48 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this really complex enough to be copyrighted? It is simply comprised of some simple shapes and some text. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This definitely exceeds Japanese TOO and is not eligible for PD-simple. This also does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used; upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -FASTILY 02:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fastily. I also want to point out that the same file has been uploaded to Commons. So, if Commons keeps that one, then this one is no longer needed regardless per WP:F8; if Commons doesn't keep that one and relicensing this one as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} isn't an option (which I don't think it is), then its current non-free use doesn't (in my opinion) comply with WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly help 93.41.125.169 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pretty certain this logo is in public domain in Japan. Copyright law of Japan#Length of protection states that corporate copyrights were good for 30 years prior to 1970 and 50 years prior to 2018. Regardless of whether the 2018 law is retroactive, the logo would be out of copyright in Japan either way. However, the copyright status in the U.S. would depend on whether or not the 1970 law applied to existing copyrighted works. If the 1970 law did not extend existing copyrights, then the logo entered public domain in Japan in 1950 + 30 + 1 = 1981 and would be in public domain in the U.S. as well. Otherwise, the logo would be copyrighted until 2046 in the United States because 1950 + 50 + 1 = 2001 came after the URAA restoration date of 1996. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional information Ixfd64.If you haven't done so already, you probably should post something similar over in the Commons deletion discussion about the file because, for all intents and purposes, that's where things are going to need to be resolved. Even if your assessment is correct (and there's a good chance it might be), there's no reason for English Wikipedia to keep a local copy of this file. If it's PD in both the US and Japan, a local file is no longer needed since Commons can host the file. If it's PD in Japan but not in the US, Commons most likely can't keep the file and a local file would need to be treated as non-free for use on Wikipedia and comply with WP:NFCC. The only way that I can see keep this file given the current way it's being used were if it was "PD-logo" in the US but not in Japan; however, that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I commented there as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For convenience., c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo - 1950.png. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2023 (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:AIB Logo 2016.png

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: Convert to non-free. Whpq (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly above the threshold of originality as the bird can't really be described in terms of simple geometric shapes. Opening a discussion as I feel this is a borderline case. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free: I don't see how this can possibly be above the threshold of originality for Northern Ireland (assuming that's the country of first publication) per co:COM:TOO United Kingdom; so, it can't be kept licensed as {{PD-logo}}. Moreover, given that the Twitter bird is apparently copyrighted under US copyright law and was only kept on Commons because it was found to have been released under a "free license", I would say that this probably is also too complex even for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. So, unless there's another reason for this to be PD, that leaves only {{non-free logo}} as an possible option to deletion. The way the file is currently being used would be acceptable as non-free content (assuming the logo is accurate which seems to be the case per aibgb.co.uk), but only for non-free use in the main infobox of Allied Irish Bank (GB): in addition, it will most likely need to be reduced to meet WP:NFCC#3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2023 (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.