Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12[edit]

File:Gulag montage.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not an "own work" of the uploader, as claimed. There are some photos from the 1920s, and I doubt the uploader was even born back then. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the individual images are probably in public domain, but we need to know the copyright status of each one. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be reuploaded under fair use or something similar? It was a great image. Spafky (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2022 (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:Fred Scarf.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright violation The license listed on wikipedia does not seem to match the licensing criteria given on the site.[1] Bob drobbs (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2021 (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:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".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 2021 December 8. FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".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:1.crop.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 ⚡ 05:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. There are currently two Packard Bell PB286LP laptops on eBay (US) for $200-250. Buy one of those, ask the sellers to mail their photos (which they already took for the auction anyway) to WP:VRT, find another enthusiast and ask them to take a picture, find a museum that has it on display and snap a pic there, etc etc. The rationale given for NFCC#1 ("The only other alternative images at this point in time are also copyrighted works, from collectors and sellers.") is imho not valid. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Buy one of those I'm not above doing that, I've taken some photos of computers in my collection for Wikipedia, but $200+ is simply out of my price range. ask the sellers to mail their photos etc. etc. As someone with a lot of experience dealing with eBay sellers, any private message that doesn't invoke a dollar sign somewhere is usually ignored. find another enthusiast and ask them to take a picture The only two people on vcfed.org who have it haven't logged into the site in quite a while. find a museum that has it on display and snap a pic there Can't find any museum who has one in their inventory.

I'll try improving the rationale, and I pinky promise if I somehow happen to find one of these in the wild I'll snap a CC picture, but I don't think a grainy black-and-white photo is draining Acer's bottom line. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DigitalIceAge: Nice work with the photos. I like how you blanked the background, I sometimes do that too, looks nice and clean. The machine costing $200+ isn't sufficient to satisfy NFCC#1. It isn't a dead person or an object that doesn't exist anymore. The photo in question could be {{PD-US-1989}} if it was originally published in the US by Packard Bell before March 1989 without a copyright notice or registration, for example in a magazine or newspaper ad or leaflet. The January 1989 InfoWorld review doesn't count because that's not published by Packard Bell. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As evidenced from the Ebay search, copies of the item apparently still exist. The image therefore fails WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2021 (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:Ambstatestamp1.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. No prejudice to restoration if someone is able to create a valid fair-use claim for this -FASTILY 05:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of stamps. I'm confident they are covered by {{PD-India}} but couldn't find the exact year these were issued. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source indicating that this stamp was in circulation as of 1947. [2] So {{PD-India}} would definitely apply here. But because the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, this would still be copyrighted in the U.S. unless we can show that they were published before that year. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2021 (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.

Added note to Category:Future copyright expiration for undeletion in 2043. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-English shorts.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 ⚡ 07:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of design on clothing. Not sure if it qualifies for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is copyrighted, and not a valid fair use, as we have many other images of uncopyrighted logos on that page. This isn't the logo of Capital City Service, so not a valid fair use. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2021 (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:Chachachá.jpeg[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 ⚡ 07:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a scan from a textbook that is presumably copyrighted. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously a scan. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:53, 13 November 2021 (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.