Wikipedia:files For Discussion 2024 March 29

March 29

File:Gravity Falls, Vol. 1 cover art.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

All four cover arts violate WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items). I would suggest using this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 1) and this poster from Rotten Tomatoes for Gravity Falls (season 2). JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete and Replace: This is a clear-cut WP:NFCC#3a violation, and since alternatives exist that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose in half the number of images, there is no reason to keep the current image set. FHSIG13 ^TALK 08:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per nomination. It's an excessive and inappropriate use of non-free material. Kys5g^talk! 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jamie-and-adam-at-sv08.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This appears to be a picture of the subjects on a jumbotron, an unacceptable derivative work. ✗ plicit 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Given that we do not know if the audience was permitted to photograph the event at which the image in question was taken, the copyright status of that event (and so the image) is dubious at best. There also several other photographs of Savage & Hyneman in the article, so the loss of this one will not hurt the readers' understanding of the subject. FHSIG13 ^TALK 03:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Brothers of Italy.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No change. Image is complex enough to be copyrighted. Whpq ( talk) 03:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Italy has a very high TOO rating. Hogan Lovells states that "In summary, the threshold for an industrial design product to enjoy copyright protection is still quite high and even famous industrial design products have been denied such protection by Italian Courts". It also applies to logos too. Not only that, it also contains a PD derivative (Italian tricolor flame) from defunct Italian Social Movement's logo on Commons. Kys5g^talk! 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I think such a logo would still be copyrighted in the United States. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relicense: I believe there is sufficient originality in the shapes used in this logo to place it above US TOO. As such, the image in question will have to be relicensed as copyright and rationalized under fair-use for its' use on Wikipedia to be continued. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Did you mean {{ PD-Italy}} + {{ Possibly non-free in US}}? Kys5g^talk! 11:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Kys5g No, I meant that I believe that the image in question should be relicensed as fully copyrighted, and that as such, a fair-use rationale proving that the current use of the image meets all 10 WP:NFCCP criteria will need to be applied or else the image would need to be deleted. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Full copyright was already its current status. Kys5g^talk! 00:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Kys5g My bad, not sure how I missed that. Armed with this new knowledge, I would still recommend maintaining the status quo, but also adding the license templates you suggested: {{ PD-Italy}} + {{ Possibly non-free in US}}. The addition of a fair-use rationale would still be required as well. FHSIG13 ^TALK 03:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Status quo, keep as non-free. The flame decal makes this more complex than many of the examples in the USA TOO guide on Commons. - Fastily 22:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Leprince-spools-film1-lenscamera.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. as not meet NFCC#8 Whpq ( talk) 03:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as this image does not significantly enhance the article. Also no actual fair use listed, which is required to demonstrate it meets all NFCC. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per nom, this image fails WP:NFCC#8 due to lack of related sourced critical commentary in the article, as well as WP:NFCC#10c (image description page), as I don't feel that the information contained in the bullet point section below the license template is sufficient to constitute a fair-use rationale. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relicense: The author has died for 100 years ago, it should be public domain in both France and US now. Kys5g^talk! 11:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relicense: Thanks to some great follow-up research by @ Kys5g, my original rationale no longer applies. As such, I have struck my original vote and am changing it to recommend that the image be relicensed as Public Domain, per the above suggestion & rationale. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Both relicense !votes above are wrong. This is a (poor quality) photograph of an invention by Louis Le Prince and the copyright resides with the copyright holder, not Louis Le Prince. The alleged source ( http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/LE_PRINCE_JSMPTE.html) does not load for me, so I can't verify the image's provenance. Now if we treat this as a non-free image, then it does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. I've reviewed the text of the article and I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. - Fastily 08:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fastily The source site loaded for me, however it simply returned a Error 404-type result when it did so. That said, as a result of our current inability to verify who the copyright holder is and if their copyright is still valid, I will once again strike my vote and change it to recommend deletion, on the basis of unclear an source and licensing status. FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If said like @ Fastily then it also fails the forth criterion ( WP:NFCC#4) too. I think it lacks licensing information and will be deleted after satisfying conditions of CSD F4. Kys5g^talk! 11:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think deleting it under conditions of CSD F4 would be better, because it lacks licensing information as @ Fhsig13 said. Kys5g^talk! 05:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MemParkJaxLife.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Per c:COM:FOP US, there is no Freedom of Panorama for statues in the United States, so the image in question cannot be kept as free media without permission from the statues' copyright holder. That said, the articles that this image is currently being used in are not lists, so it could possibly be relicensed as {{ Non-free 3D art}}. FHSIG13 ^TALK 23:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Not a derivative of non-free content. Statue was erected in 1924 according to the article about the sculptor; it's out of copyright in the US and therefore PD. - Fastily 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fastily Thank you very much for your great follow-up research. Now armed with the new knowledge that you provided, it is clear that my nomination is erroneous, and since the image in question will more than likely be speedy kept per Applicability point 3 for WP:SK, I am hereby requesting that my nomination be withdrawn per WP:WITHDRAWN, as this to me is now a snowball situation. FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.