Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

File:Kittie 2007.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as free alternatives exist at commons:Category:Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#3 as there are 3 non-free similar images.; fails WP:NFCC#5 as no encyclopedic rationale is given in the caption at Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#8 per #1 and #5. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no specific sourced critical commentary about this photo in the article so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking; moreover, if the sole purpose of the image is just to show the band performing, then there are a number of equivalent free images available on Commons which can serve that encyclopedic purpose per WP:FREER. Unless there's a really good reason for claiming this as an exception to NFCC#1 such as one of those listed in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, there does not seem to be any way to justify this type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a or NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (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:Kittie Dynamo 2000.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as free alternatives exist at commons:Category:Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#3 as there are 3 non-free similar images.; fails WP:NFCC#5 as no encyclopedic rationale is given in the caption at Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#8 per #1 and #5. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Encyclopedic value of this photo would seem questionable even if it wasn't licensed as non-free content since it basically shows the back of someone's head with the band barely visible in the background; however, since this is licensed as non-free the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is clearly lacking: the photo itself is not specifically the subject of any sourced critical commentary and there's is nothing about this particular image which the reader needs to see to understand the content in Spit (album)#Promotion and touring.

In addition, if the person who took this photo wants to release it under a free license compatible with WP:COPY or c:COM:L, then they should change the license on the Flickr page or contact OTRS; otherwise, there's no justification for non-free use per above and because there's no reason to believe that a freely licensed equivalent could not be found or created by someone else per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and comments above and there are issues with WP:NFCC#10c as there are not separate rationales for each use. -- Whpq (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2017 (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:Kittie 2001.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as free alternatives exist at commons:Category:Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#3 as there are 3 non-free similar images.; fails WP:NFCC#5 as no encyclopedic rationale is given in the caption at Kittie; fails WP:NFCC#8 per #1 and #5. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As with the other two files listed above, I cannot see any way to possibly justify this type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't know exactly how these images should be deleted. The 2000 picture was for showing a Kittie concert from the year 2000 to show an example of Kittie's touring for their debut album. The other 2 pictures were from Flickr. I've seen many files on Wikipedia that come from Flickr, serve similar purposes as these 3 Kittie images of mine, and, after many years, haven't been removed. Statik N (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Statik N: First, I reformatted your comment per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors so that it makes this thread easier to follow and so that the format is consistent with the one typically used in FFD discussions, but I otherwise did not change the comment in any other way.

As for Flickr, while it is true that there are photos used in Wikipedia articles which come from Flickr, it is not true that all of these photos are licensed the same. Some Flickr users release there photos under a free license which is compatible with the requirements of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Since freely licensed photos are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, they tend to be much easier to use. The photos you uploaded have not been released under a free license, but rather as "All rights reserved". This type of license is too restrictive for Wikipedia or Commons which means the files can only be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. As alluded to above, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for each use of a non-free file. There is some question as to whether the way the files are being used in their respective articles satisfies WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#5 and WP:NFCC#8, and this is what is being discussed about these files in their FFD discussions. Jsut for reference, all ten criteria need to be clearly met; satisfying just one or only a few is not sufficient per WP:JUSTONE. Also, not all files are licensed or used the same way, so trying to justify non-free use by saying other files exist is not a good idea per WP:OTHERIMAGE. What you are going to need to do is explain how each of these files satisfies all ten non-free content use criterion and try and establish a consensus in support of your arguments. Each file has a separate FFD discussion, so your comments about a particular file should be added to that particular discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I do think changing the license of the 3 images is a great idea. Can we try that? Statik N (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, only the original copyright holder of a photo (which is typically the person who takes the photo) can change the licensing of their photos and others need their explicit constent to do so. You can try and contact the Flickr account holder if you want (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) and see if they would be willing to either change the license on the Flickr account, or release another version of the photo under a free license. Some people are willing to do such things, while others are not. The key poiint is that the Flickr account holder needs to be the original copyright holder of the photo and this is not just a case of Flickr washing. If the Flickr account holder is not the original copyright holder, the file cannot be accepted as freely licensed under any possible scenario without the original copyright holder's explicit consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Could I reupload images and give them a free license? Statik N (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only the original copyright holder has the right to license their images, so if you did not actually create these images yourself (i.e., take the actual photos), you cannot claim ownership over them. You can't go to your local library, take out a book (if people still do that kind of thing) you did not write, bring the book home, scan its contents from front to back, and then upload those contents to the Internet claiming ownership over the original creative content. You can't purchase a CD (if people still buy them) of music you did not create, use your computer to convert the songs into mp3 files, and then upload them to the Internet claiming ownership over the original content. So, no you can't find photos somewhere online, download them to your computer and then reupload them to Wikipedia under a free license as your "own work" if you are not the original copyright holder of the photos. Even you change the content you download enough to make it a derivative work and establish a new copyright for the derivative itself, this does not cancel any copyright held on the original content and Wikipedia will not accept a freely licensed file even of a derivative work without the explicit consent of the creator of the original content if the original work is considered to be under copyright protection. Once a file has been released under a free license, it cannot be cancelled or revoked; some hopefully you can see how trying to do this for someone else's work is not something Wikipedia is going to accept, except when the consent of the original copyright holder can be verified beyond a shadow of doubt. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly replaceable -- Whpq (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2017 (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:JROTC Ribbon U-205.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 23#File:JROTC Ribbon U-205.jpg. ℯ xplicit 00:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this may just be two rectangles, does the stitching make this ineligible for {{PD-shape}}? – Train2104 (t • c) 02:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2017 (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:Paul Lee bass guitarist.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom, no encyclopedic value. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:14, 17 November 2017 (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:Paul Lee bassist.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2017 (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:Paul Lee musician.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2017 (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:Wongyanlam.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image lacks author information. The image didn't come out of thin air—was it scanned? From where? What was the original source material and where was it published pre-1920 to qualify as public domain? czar 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to me it was pretty clear that this was resolved in 2009 or so, image is from 1920 or EARLIER and has been in public domain.. but if you want to delete it, go ahead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (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:Crow Fulton Center 2017.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 as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this photo was released under the license that is stated, or that the uploader is the copyright holder of the photo. The listed source for the image is Facebook, which leads me to believe that the uploader is not the original creator of the photo, and thus does not have the ability to release the photo under the stated license. Calibrador (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The EXIF data includes a copyright statement "Copyright Arizona Board of Regents All Rights Reserved". -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2017 (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:O'keeffe 1921.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph from 1921 [1]. Copyright depends on its first publication, not when it was taken. Very possible that this was copyrighted by its famous photographer (Alfred Stieglitz), so would require check of registration/renewal. If confirmed unpublished—unlikely, as in collection of the Met—could be PD by Hirtle as the photographer died in 1946. czar 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (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:Obama and Grossman.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source is "self-made" but no authorship information. At least one photo deleted for similar reasons, as noted on user talk page czar 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (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:Saurabhsulabh Singh dec2015.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is is a collage being used on a user page. There is no source information about the collage elements to verify that this material does meet the CC-BY-SA 3.0 that is asserted. The editor has a history of copyright violations. Whpq (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned file with questionable licensing status. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (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:Student Union 06-07.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable individuals, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (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:Malharro Parvas.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

low-res version of File:Martín Malharro - Las parvas (la pampa de hoy) - Google Art Project.jpg Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to other JPG file. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2017 (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:Sant'Apollinare Nuovo (Justinian I) (cropped).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality crop, high-res file available at File:Mosaic of Justinian I - Sant'Apoilinare Nuovo - Ravenna 2016.png Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2017 (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:Samsung Lions insignia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Samsung Lions insignia.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2017 (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.