Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

File:Walter Oesau.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: no consensus. Sandstein 08:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free image in an article that also contains a free & properly licensed pencil portrait File:Walter_Oesau_Portrait.png -- I suggest using it instead. The image in question is fairly generic and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A sketch portrait is not similar to the authentic photograph. Rather the pencil sketch should be used in the body article as it doesn't look good as the infobox image. The photo truly identifies the person in question, and a free substitute is not adequate to identify the person. Such omission would prompt others into searching for an authentic photo of this person and trying to upload it as non-free. BTW, I tagged the image as PD in EU areas as the image was anonymous created, and the subject of the photo died in 1944, i.e. 73 years ago. However, the image may still be copyrightable in the US per URAA. --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I must have overlooked some parts of Flickr description. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the uploader stated that the image is part of the collection by Heinrich Hoffmann (photographer). These postcards of Knight's Cross winners were issued by Hoffmann and sold to the public, similar to baseball cards in the U.S. These images are not PD in Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the photo being a propagandistic image, I don't see it as any more "authentic" vs a sketch. Given that the Hoffmann postcard image is not free, the free image is preferable, IMO. Here are the postcard in question, plus additional ones from the same series: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - one wonders if this photograph, if taken by Hoffmann, is part of the "Hoffmann archive" that was seized by US forces at the end of the war, and as seized Nazi assets is considered PD in the United States? Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. More information here: User:Diannaa/Problematic images. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that whole mess. Fair enough then - the sketch is sufficient to illustrate the subject, IMO, so the photo should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sketch is frankly a poor substitute for a photo for a bio article. Some drawings, such as one I recall seeing once of Hermann Fegelein was better as it was much more lifelike; if this photo cannot not be used, then hopefully another can be found by interested editors who work on the article. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a realistic sketch version of the photo at Commons. George Ho (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George, an artwork based on a photograph is a derivative work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the photo as failing to meet non-free content criterion eight. I can find nothing in the article for which any understanding was improved with or incomplete without this copyrighted photo. If there is such reliably-sourced content, and I missed it, please bring it to my attention. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fourthords, how is visual identification not effective enough to help readers understand the person? How would deleting the image not affect readers' understanding of the subject? At least I found other sources: HeroAutographs,AKPool,eBay (another). George Ho (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that an overly 'staged' photo, such as an image designed specifically for propaganda purposes, can detract from the understanding of the subject. If you take into account the low angle, the dramatic shadows, the heroic posing, etc, the portrayal is quite different vs what one would expect from a simpler photo portrait. BTW, the sketch image appears to have been drawn from this postcard, also from Hoffmann: link. Such photos are probably also heavily retouched. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the verifiability policy, there should be nothing in the article uncited to reliable sources, and the eighth criterion of the non-free content criteria policy says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Currently, nothing in the article uses reliable sources to describe the content of File:Walter Oesau.jpg at all. There is no prose describing his appearance that requires using copyrighted material to understand. There is no reliably-sourced description of his clothes/uniform in the article that requires using copyrighted material to understand. There is no reliably-sourced discussion in the article about the photo itself that requires using the photo itself to understand. Lastly, reading the article in its entirety, I find nothing in the article whatsoever that requires using copyrighted material to understand or would have increased understanding of the prose present. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It goes without saying that a non-free image is not PD. I disagree however that posed portrait is any less accurate than an informal photograph. Nor do I accept that a propagandistic image does not enhance our understanding. In the context of the article, the reverse is the case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the image helps to understand the propaganda aspects of the subject's career, then it really needs to be in the "In propaganda" section, where the Hoffman postcard would be discussed. There's no section like this in the article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what exactly is propagandistic about this image? The original image from which the sketch was done isn't provided, and comparing the sketch and image, I don't consider that the sketch is even an accurate representation of the man's appearance. The NFR could do with a tweak, but this non-free image is fine to be used in the infobox to show what the man looked like. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You don't know what's "propagandistic" about an image that was created by the Reich's leading propaganda photographer and disseminated for propaganda purposes? Compare with this spread from Der Adler, a wartime propaganda magazine of the Luftwaffe: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look over there, other bad stuff exists! It is a portrait, for heaven's sake. Are you suggesting we delete every portrait of a German officer or award recipient taken during WWII? That is the logical outcome of this approach. Every military portrait, and portrait in general, is intended to make the photographed person look good. That is why people have portraits taken. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That image has been manipulated. I am not an expert on editing images, but there are other versions of that picture available on the Internet from which you can discern that someone has added some white to the Knight's Cross, presumably so that the Swastika cannot be recognized.--Assayer (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a stretch. It looks more like a difference in brightness. Plus, with how tiny the image is, I'd have a hard time picking out a swastika in any case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per George Ho. Under K.e.coffman's interpretation, we'd want to delete US government portraits etc as well... :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:30, 22 June 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:AcornBusinessComputer210.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 F7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no known free or public domain alternatives to this image." Why? ViperSnake151 Talk 01:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be replaced with a free alternative 24.97.253.174 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 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.

1914–15 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team

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: Relicense both as free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files are licensed as non-free historic images, but I am wondering whether they can be converted to public domain due to their age or for some other reason (e.g., lack of copyright notice, etc.). The source of the file is given as "University of Illinois Archives", but there is no other information provided. If for some reason these files cannot be converted to public domain and need to be treated as non-free, there's really no way to justify using both of them in the article per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since they essentially seem to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (i.e., identify the team) and neither photo is individually the subject of any sourced commentary within the article.

So, I suggest keep for both if the licensing of each can be converted to public domain, and delete for one of the files if they need to be treated as non-free. Which of the two files should be kept in the latter case is open for discussion, but "File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg" being currently used in the infobox is of a better quality and actually identifies the members of the team, so it seems that this probably should be the one that is kept.

Finally, if only one of the files can be converted to public domain, that the one which cannot be converted should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tag both as public domain and move to Commons. The larger version of File:1914-15 Fighting Illini men's basketball team.jpg should be undeleted as well. Looking at the bottom portion of the image, this image looks published at the time, i.e. 1914 or 1915. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As PD image. Publication occurs when an image is made available to the public, which includes being deposited in an archive. The image dates back to 1915; therefore copyright has expired. L:arger version should be undeleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 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:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

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. There are two issues here: does the image fail the NFCC merely because it is a SVG and therefore scalable, and is the vectorization (the SVG code) potentially unfree? Contributors don't reach consensus here, and I see no compelling argument for deletion in the absence of consensus. As concerns the first issue, my recollection is that the argument that SVGs can't be used under fair use has not yet obtained community-wide consensus in previous discussions. As concerns the second issue, it is not clear from this discussion whether the vectorization (even assuming it's copyrightable) was not in fact done by the uploader; and whether, even if it wasn't, why the fair use claim would not also extend to the vectorization. Sandstein 09:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under the no free equivalent criterion of Wikipedia's fair-use policy, vector versions of non-free images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless the original vectorization (i.e. EPS) was done by the image's copyright holder. For vector images of free content, it is advisable that the original vectorization itself be out of copyright or released under a free content license. The vectorization was not done by the USPS but by a user who is likely not a employee of the USPS Flow 234 (Nina) talk 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanted to add that this file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg and the consensus was that it is non-free and not public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stupid reason to delete the image. I have never heard of this guideline. If this is the case, then the nominator needs to go through the millions of vector files on Wikipedia nominate them too, because I guarantee they aren't the original vectorizations. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few comments and I'm not trying to be snarky. First trying to argue WP:DELETEALL or WP:OTHERIMAGE is generally not a good way to try and argue in favor of keeping an image. Second, calling the nominator's reason "stupid" because "I have never heard of it" is a bit of WP:RIPPED. Finally, there actually has been discussion about this kind of thing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Vector images of non-free logos from unofficial sources and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Non-free images and SVG, so maybe things are not so clear. The concern seems to be that there can be some creativity involved in the creation of SVG logo because SVG apparently involves the writing of a code, whereas other file formats involve only a mechanical reproduction of existing data. I have added a {{Please see}} to this discussion to WT:NFCC for further input. It might also be helpful to seek input from WT:COMP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an entirely incorrect interpretation of copyright law. The method of creating something is not copyrightable, only the output. The output is an image that is a faithful reproduction of an existing image, so the "new" creation (e.g. the reproduction) does not have any original aspect that would be copyrightable. Copyright exists only on creative works, not on mechanical processes of creating something. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SVGs are not graphic files but XML-compliant computer code; normally when you vector you aren't interacting with this code directly but it is fully possible to write it by hand and/or tweak the SVG text to optimize the image, thus adding a layer of creativity that might be protected by copyright. While there is no strong case law one way or another to distinguish the underlying code from the graphic image it produces as separate copyright, the concept does exist for computer code, so we err on caution. As such with the presented graphic under copyright, we do not accept user-created versions of it as these allow for infinite resolution which defeats NFC, that there may be small errors introduced by the user in recreation, and the issue of copyright between the logo's owner and user. We only allow SVGs of non-free logos when they are obtained directly from works produced by the group that holds that logo's copyright as to eliminate all these issus (outside of the infinite scalability but that's a reasonable tradeoff). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pleading ignorance is not particularly convincing here. This rule is written in the guideline at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion. What BU Rob13 says is, is a bit misguided: the "method of creating something" is copyrightable insofar as that "method" is a work containing originality. ~~Thus a blazon is copyrightable, and not just a drawn coats of arms.~~ A computer program or videogame is copyrightable, and not just screenshots of it. The argument can be found in the guideline and need not be recounted here: vector files may contain originality. Non-free vector files also have a WP:NFCC#3b dimension. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Finnusertop: Your argument is undermined by the fact that blazons are actually not copyrightable. See c:COM:COA. See also here for a specific analysis of the copyright arguments for and against blazons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strange, but true. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFCCP item #3b comes to mind: “Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used”, and a SVG image is, by nature, high resolution. Samboy (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia hosts the SVG but it's rendered into a PNG on articles and the file description page using librsvg. So long as that PNG is low-resolution, it should be fine (per the language of templates such as {{SVG-Logo}} and {{SVG-Res}}). clpo13_(talk) 16:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to make this easy and upload a jpg/png logo as a replacement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An SVG of an image is a derivative work. NFCC allows derivative works (in particular, reduced-size versions). I accept Rob's point that this may not reach the threshold of originality. They are still not free. I take the point about the discussions of SVG derivatives, but since they did not result in changes to the NFCC we cannot assume that they represent consensus. Moreover, the USPS has registered the logo as a trademark. What evidence is there that it falls under WP:NFCC and not WP:LOGO? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 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:MH370 satcom analysis October 2014.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: No consensus. Or rather, lack of interest by third parties despite multiple relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the recent tagging of the image with Template:non-free reduce by Ronhjones and the smaller-sized image generated by the bot, since I believe the original size meets the WP:NFCC guideline (and the reasons were adequately explained in the image info template).

The image is a derivative work, consisting of a background from Google Earth (that cannot be easily replaced as explained in the image info template) overlaid with a representation of plotted data with appropriate labels. As for the background, although it is not free content, Google allows reuse of Google Earth imagery for uses other than film or television (which requires a no-cost license) as long as clear attribution is given to the data providers. So in that case, using the larger image poses no copyright problem. The image does still need to meet the non-free content guidelines, but with respect to the background, the NFC guideline for respecting commercial opportunities is met by the larger image and the image size is justified for reasons below.

As for the overlaid image, it is copyrighted by the government investigative board. It was published in a report that was licensed CC-BY-4.0, although the inside cover of the report notes that copyright in images supplied by third parties remains with the respective owners. The image is credited to a multi-national government investigation team. That team consists of representatives from Malaysia, China, and Australia (ATSB). Malaysian copyright excludes "government reports" (commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Malaysia); China's copyright law excludes "documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature" (see commons:Template:PD-PRC-exempt); and Australia's ATSB holds copyright in its works and allows others to "distribute the material acknowledging the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as the source", while its reports are licensed CC-BY-3.0, but in both cases it excludes copyright of third party works used by the ATSB (see [1]). So the bottom line is that there is a low commercial value for using the image and a strong presumption, based on the low copyright restrictions on works by the constituent agencies of the investigation team, that there is a low commercial value for resuing the image.

So finally, the question is solely about the proper size of the image. The original image uploaded was 886 × 428 pixels (379,208 pixels total). The NFC guideline states: "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. ... At the low pixel count end of the range, most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels. ... At the extreme high end of the range, non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution." The original image uploaded was just large enough for the scale, coordinate labels, and attribution text to be legible, which considering that it was 1/3rd of the size of the "extreme high end", should have been fine. At the smaller size, they're completely illegible.

I have updated the image rationale to better explain the need for the larger image. AHeneen (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've revdeleted the old version of this file, as we can't claim fair use on orphaned/unused images. The original version can be restored if there's consensus here to do so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:55, 31 May 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:The CW San Diego logo.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 ⚡ 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already uploaded them as File:CW San Diego logo 2017.png on Commons under c:COM:TOO John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:58, 31 May 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:NLE-Uniform-PHI.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: relisted on 2017 July 9. Sandstein 09:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NLE-Uniform-PHI.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-MIL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-PIT.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLC-Uniform-STL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLW-Uniform-COL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:AFCW-Uniform-DEN.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LSUFootballUni.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MissStFootballUni.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLE-Uniform-MIA.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-Hanwha.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-Doosan.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KHL-Uniform-VIT.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALE-Uniform-TB.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Sports uniform of the Cleveland Indians.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALC-Uniform-KC.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALW-Uniform-LAA.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ALW-Uniform-TEX.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLE-Uniform-ATL.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:NLW-Uniform-ARI.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:KBO-Uniform-KT.png (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:Rk as sanjay.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 ⚡ 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a poster of the film. We have freely available pictures of Ranbir Kapoor at Commons:Category:Ranbir Kapoor. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is an on-set photo of Untitled Sanjay Dutt biopic, and in the image Ranbir Kapoor looks like Sanjay Dutt. This image is not like other "available pictures" of Ranbir Kapoor. Taniya94 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 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:Cromer crab boat.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 ⚡ 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 11:00, 31 May 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:Soutelphan.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: convert to fair use. ℯ xplicit 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, third party logo. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 00:12, 1 June 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:Hofmann Narcissus.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free on English Wikipedia, but apparently free at Commons c:File:Hofmann_Narcissus.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally uploaded in 2013, and the author died in 1945. So in 2015, it crossed the life of the author plus 70 years threshold. The art is definitely public domain now. As for the low-res enwiki copy, delete as obsolete. —Guan aco 05:14, 1 June 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:NHS-Copyright.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"copyright BTPL" watermark - unclear if author is copyright holder – Train2104 (t • c) 14:16, 31 May 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:Vice Squad 1953 poster.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: Keep current non-free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poster is free at commons c:File:Vice_Squad_1953_poster.jpg owing to apparent non-renewal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: image is up for deletion at Commons due to incorrect licensing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The movie is renewed for copyright (RE0000097617). Unsure about the poster, however. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep Commons copy has been deleted. We need to keep the poster as a non-free file. We hope (talk) 00:48, 10 June 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:Lloyd Andrews Hamilton.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: convert to {{PD-US}}. ℯ xplicit 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if US army official photo, this is PD? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And its time frame – 1919 – makes it old enough to be PD in the US. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 31 May 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:Sierk Coolsma.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: keep. ℯ xplicit 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently free at Commons c:File:Sierk_Coolsma.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No indication that subject was photographer. Even if subject were photographer, copyright would have been extended in the US by the URAA. Just because someone claims it's free doesn't make it so, and when uploading here I had already checked the possibility that the image may be PD. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Chris, having a copy on Commons doesn't mean the image is in the public domain. I've seen things like celebrity photos, film posters and lobby cards which are here at en:WP licensed as non-free pop up at Commons with PD tags. They get there because someone apparently wants to use the image on another project which doesn't permit non-PD images. So the image in question suddenly is in the "public domain" and down the line, will have to be deleted there.

Chris is very experienced in image licensing, so I trust his judgment. I'd also hope that those nominating images with the argument of a free copy at Commons would first research whether or not the image really does belong at Commons before bringing the en:WP copies to FFD. If this isn't done, en:WP is at risk of losing properly licensed non-free images. We hope (talk) 14:46, 2 June 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:Portland stabbing.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable picture for a purpose that could be better served by a fair-use mugshot, if need be. The subject is not identifiable and the rest of the picture does not show anything notable to justify fair-usage. Veggies (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'keep. It shows the suspect immediately after he committed the crime. It is not meant to provide visual identification of the suspect, however it is the only video recording of the incident and I believe it plays a reasonable role on the page. MB298 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. It's purpose of use is claimed to be to "serve as the primary means of visual identification of the subject." Nothing in the article reliably describes Mr. Christian in a manner that requires the use of copyrighted, long range, indistinct imagery to understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- blurry and with an unclear purpose in the article. The omission of this image would not be detrimental to understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very poor quality and fails in identification of subject. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 2 June 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:1921 stamp Liechtenstein Gutenberg Castle.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: convert to {{PD-USonly}}. ℯ xplicit 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a 1921 stamps from Liechtenstein is the the public domain for two reasons, first that it was published before 1923 and secondly that 70 years have elapsed since it was issued which according to the WIPO Liechtenstein IP act is their copyright term. Also of interest is whether the same IP document considers stamps to be "means of payment" "Zahlungsmittel" in Article 5, section b, which would affect all other Liechtenstein stamps. Some stamps up to 1935 are on the commons with a general 70 year criteria. Thoughts, PD and move to commons? ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the stamp was "published" before 1923, it is in the public domain in the US and should use {{PD-USonly}} instead of being uploaded as fair use. The only copyright info I can find for Lichtenberg is that it is the life of the author +70 years. While the policy on Commons is that an image must be free in both the US and source country, the policy on English Wikipedia is to only consider the US copyright status (Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights). AHeneen (talk) 01:24, 1 June 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:Way up.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unusued, lo res, no context given, and no source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 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:Mehoffer Strange garden.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently free at Commons c:Mehoffer_Strange_garden.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 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:Marfanoid–progeroid–lipodystrophy syndrome in a 24-year-old female.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 ⚡ 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet fair use criteria. Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is from a copyrighted publication and there is no indication that the subject and photographer agree to its release. Also see Doc James' comment on the talk page of the syndrome. Kablammo (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The experience of Lizzie Velásquez is important. According to our article on her, she was voted the "World's Ugliest Woman" after a video was posted on YouTube. See other videos and this article of or about her. Here, this unnamed woman's picture appeared in a copyrighted medical journal, and since republished on Wikipedia without her consent. It should be deleted now. It is not for us to determine whether her image should be available to all.

As for the argument that no replaceable free image is available: Has anyone asked for permission, either from our subject here, or from Ms. Velásquez?

Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 2 June 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:Elpida Karamandi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently free at Commons c:File:Elpida_Karamandi.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 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:Sadc logo.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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a text logo, however unless the NFUR is removed it can't be moved to Commons as easily. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, so withdrawing FFD. Not my evening.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 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:Metroline logo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, C:file:Metroline_Logo.svg has replaced it (and is on commons) menaechmi (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons image is nominated for deletion due to UK's low threshold of originality. If curious, compare this to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 28#File:Human League Love and Dancing.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because it's been withdrawn, and it seems the file is being kept on Commons, I'd think this still stands. menaechmi (talk) 18:25, 28 June 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:True (EP).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Caution! This file is very, very, very red, and might hurt eyes to look at) File is orphaned and is available at commons C:File:True EP Cover.gif (The same eye caution applies here) menaechmi (talk) 19:54, 31 May 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.