Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Canadian passport photos[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 -FASTILY 08:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of non-free images of former passport in Canadian passport#Gallery. Non-free images used in a gallery markup is not really allowed per WP:NFG because such usage tends to lack the context required by WP:NFCC#8, and I don't see the way these two files are being used being an exception to that general consensus. There is no sourced critical commentary about the changes in the passport design anywhere in the article, at least none relating to these two versions, and the changes themselves appear to be minor (different color, etc.) from the image shown in the main infobox, so there's no real reason justification for multiple non-free images to be used per WP:FREER or WP:NFCC#3a. Unless these older versions are now clearly within the public domain (i.e., Crown copyright is no longer applicable to the cover), I don't see how they can be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly: I don't know the copyright rules for Canadian passport photos. I don't have any objection to the photo being removed. Regards. // sikander { talk } 00:17, 8 August 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.

Non-free use of former logos in Italy of Values[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 -FASTILY 08:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use or former logos in Italy of Values#Symbols which fails WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Displaying former non-free logos like this is WP:DECORATIVE and not WP:NFCC compliant. The established consensus reagarding this type of logo use, particulary in galleries, is that there needs to be some sourced critical commentary discussing the change in branding in order to provide the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. Moreover, the main differences between the logos themselves simply appears to be the text content since the bird imagery seems the same for each version; therefore, there is really no need for multiple non-free files to be used per WP:NFCC#3a. Simply providing a non-free use rationale is not ina and of itself a sufficient justification for non-free use as explained in WP:JUSTONE, so I don't see how these can be kept if the NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 issues aren't properly addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 3 August 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:London Necropolis bombing.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: no consensus. Mainly due to lack of information, but tending towards keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring this to FFD because although it may have been reasonable in good faith to think that this was under a 'Crown' style license, this may not be the accurate copyright status of the image.

In the interests of clarity, I'd previously nominated this image using my abandoned alternative account here : Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_June_23#File:London_Necropolis_bombing.jpg

The Southern Railway was not a "Crown" body but a private company, which nominally ceased to exist in 1948, when the railways in the UK were nationalised into British Railways.

The ultimate successor to what British Railways (and potentialy the Southern Railway) held is the UK's Department of Transport, however, neither the nationalisation, or the transfer of BR's holding to the department when the residual BRB was wound up, this would not have changed the status or term of any existing copyrights from standard corporate ones to 'crown' style ones, as I understand it.

If the image cannot be retained as PD-UK-unknown (and determining an identifiable credit for a 1941 image taken under wartime conditions is not a practical proposition), than I would argue that as an historical image of contemporaneous historical events which are explicitly mentioned in the article which this image is used for, there is ample reason for NFCC to be applied. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is surely not whether the transfers would "have changed the status or term of any existing copyrights" but whether the Govt, as the only potential owner of the rights, has included this in the material it has released from copyright. If the photo credit in the book this is scanned from was checked correctly, there is no reason to think it is not so included. Wiki copyright buffs love to assert that there is a copyright, but often give no thought to who those rights might belong to. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even as complicated as that. At the time in question the Southern Railway was a state agency under the Railway Executive Committee (in turn merged into the Ministry of War Transport on 1 May 1941, a few days after this photo was taken). The 1948 nationalisation was a decision by Attlee not to return the railways to private hands (which had been Churchill's intention), not a "the government is coming to throw out the old boss" nationalisation in the usual sense. In the unlikely event that this doesn't qualify for Crown Copyright, I'm willing to take my chances should the ghost of Lord Brabazon try to sue me. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it's down to whether for the purposes of copyright, the fact that a nominally private concern was under state control, makes works created by that company, 'crown' covered works. My view is that it would not, but it would probably need an expert view, on just how far the REC's powers extended. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that Commons has c:File:The_London_Necropolis_Railway_Station,_privately_owned_station_in_Westminster_Bridge_Road,_after_London's_biggest..._-_NARA_-_541896.tif. However that is from a different angle and so might not be a suitable replacement. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 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) 05:59, 18 July 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) 07:34, 26 July 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) 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Iridescent. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 3 August 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:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.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: relisted on 2018 August 11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Hofmann's painting 'The Gate', 1959–60.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.

File:Marvin Mapaga.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 ⚡ 10:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low res photo with no camera-generated EXIF data and Facebook metadata indicate this is not an original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The picture does have proper authorization by the owner.Stephreef (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, please add that to the image description, as well as the link to the Facebook page where it was originally published. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:05, 3 August 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:Sean Salumu.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 ⚡ 10:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not-quite-cropped out site logo and Facebook metadata indicate this is not the uploader's own work. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The picture does have proper authorization by the owner.Stephreef (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, please add that to the image description, as well as the link to the Facebook page where it was originally published. Would be nice if you uploaded a version that didn't have the website logo either. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to listing: I've added several other images with the same issue—they're low-res Facebook downloads that dramatically differ in quality from the user's other uploads that have non-Facebook camera metadata. I've asked the user to consider uploading their high-res originals with camera metadata intact. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not properly verified: All of these seem to have come from Facebook and many are tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Facebook's licensing not realy compatible with c:COM:L; so, moving these without OTRS verification or some other clearer verification of their free license is only likely going to lead to them being deleted from Commons per c:COM:PCP. Ideally, these should then be re-uploaded to Commons with their original EXIF data, but I agree with Ytoyoda that more information is going to be needed. Wikipedia is going to need either a WP:CONSENT from the copyright holder emailed to Wikimedia OTRS or a link clearly showing the file has been released as licensed. Absent of either of those two things, these cannot be kept locally and there's no point in moving them to Commons. Finally, there's no way these can be kept locally as non-free content because all of the individuals they depict are still living and the files would not pass WP:NFCC#1; so, there's free license has to be verified or they will have to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks for the detailed clarification and explanation.Stephreef (talk) 10:53, 4 August 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.