Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23[edit]

File:2015ferrariitalia.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is freely licensed but the product is still copyrighted so this image is a non-free derivative work; see c:COM:TOYS. Image is not in use. Whpq (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:14, 23 October 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:Doomed.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. Whpq (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, only used on The Doomed Planet, which was deleted ten years ago. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 02:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:14, 23 October 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:Downtown denison texas.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. Whpq (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low resolution, better alternatives available at c:Category:Denison, Texas. ✗plicit 03:27, 23 October 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:Down Town Manhattan.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. Whpq (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. ✗plicit 03:42, 23 October 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:Biroly logo.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 ⚡ 13:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logo above threshold of originality. No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Only used in draft article in user space. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file that has no use in the mainspace. Salavat (talk) 15:02, 26 October 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:KTXA logo 1981.svg[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: Procedural, IAR close. This isn't a matter for FfD, I've applied the appropriate tag to the page -FASTILY 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No fair use rationale. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 23 October 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:StrummerCashRedemptionSong.ogg[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 ⚡ 13:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in the "Joe Strummer" article insufficiently supported by critical commentary. The "Redemption Song" article insufficient to justify using the sample there either. May fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 06:15, 23 October 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:I-24 ridgecut 1967.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 evidence of publication in the US prior to 1977 without a copyright notice. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a citation from a reliable source explicitly proving that this image is PD -FASTILY 19:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is listed in the Tennessee State Library & Archives Catalog and the Tennessee Virtual Archive (TeVA), and both state that the copyright status has not be evaluated. The latter specifies: "Materials in TeVA are available for purposes of education, personal use, historical research, and other 'fair use' as defined by U.S. Copyright Law." The photograph does not appear online on the Chattanooga Public Library website with different information; TeVA is linked from the CPL's website though, which might be the point of conflation or confusion.

The important point here is that the image is tagged stating that it was published between 1927 and 1977 without a copyright notice. While it is true that the image itself is not watermarked with a notice, there's no proof it was published in that range of years. From the archives records, it appears that the photo was created in 1967 and placed in the archives in the "Tennessee Department of Conservation Photograph Collection, 1937-1976", which is not publication. If anything, the photograph was not published, i.e. made available to the public, until the digital copy was placed online, well after 1977, and on websites that currently bear "© 2022" notices. Imzadi 1979 → 06:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I obtained this photograph in person from the Chattanooga Public Library, with permission. I had no idea it was already published online. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013: unless the CPL owns the photograph, they couldn't give you permission to use it here. Libraries can say they'll give you permission for personal use, or fair use, or at least say they're giving such a permission.

As noted, it appears that the photograph is owned by the Tennessee Department of Conservation, so that state department would own the copyright in the image. If the photo is considered unpublished, then that copyright will expire after 2087, 120 years after creation. Otherwise, it will expire 95 years after the first year it was published. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: - the TeVA link says it is owned by TSLA. The photograph came from a database run by TSLA that is accessible in a few other locations throughout the state, including the Chattanooga Public Library, where I happened to obtain it.Bneu2013 (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013: do you have any documentation that this photograph was published between 1927 and 1977 without a notice, or did you make an assumption because there is no notice on the image and it was created in 1967 that it would be public domain? Because otherwise it is under copyright and needs to be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just made an assumption. However, I have since modified the sourcing to state that the photograph came from TeVA, but was accessed via the CPL. If I remember right, the photo may have been published in a pamphlet produced by the Tennessee Department of Highways (predecessor to TDOT), but it will take some time to confirm this. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence of publication in 1967 without notice. Without that we cannot determine this is PD. -- Whpq (talk) 02:05, 26 October 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:Princess Seble Desta holding flowers with Emperor Haile Selassie, Prince Sahle, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File was uploaded under a {{PD-Because}} license with "The copyright has expired" being given as the reason. To be kind, that licensing is very questionable at best. The file is described be an "AP Wirephoto Service" photo and given the date it was supposed to have been taken (May 26, 1954), it's quite possible that it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}; however, I've been unable to verify this. Given the the photo is being used in the main infobox of Seble Desta and Desta is still living, it seems like it's going to be to justify converting this to non-free use per WP:FREER. If someone can help verify that this file is indeed PD for some reason, then it can be kept (perhaps the in-photo caption should be cropped out tough); otherwise, I think it will need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons - Commons will accept AP photos as PD for lack of notice/renewal. See c:Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press. Library of Congress researchers have looked into the publication of AP photos of that era and determined that they are almost all published without proper copyright notice. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 03:22, 24 October 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.

Sky One mid-1990s logos[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: convert. to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ✗plicit 23:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether the mid-1990s Sky One logos sharing a purple shape are free or non-free. If non-free, then the logos may fail WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8. If free, then free in more likely the US, whose originality threshold is higher (c:COM:TOO US). Unsure whether it's free in the UK, whose threshold is much lower than average standard (c:COM:TOO UK). George Ho (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free in the US, but unfree in UK in my opinion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 October 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.