Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4

File:Vibratory analgesia gate control.gif

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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as PD-ineligible, but seems sufficiently complex for copyright protection. B (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (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:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).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: Resolved -FASTILY 01:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image was scanned from a book jacket. That book was properly copyrighted.[1] The claim our image description page is making, I think, is that Bachrach Studios is the photo studio that created this photo and that they failed to comply with copyright formalities for the photo itself. But I don't see any evidence of that from our image description page. B (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I understand correctly that you are suggesting, because the photograph was commissioned by the publisher of the book, and the photographer did not retain copyright on it, that the publisher had copyright for it beginning at the time Heat Lightning was published? We'd probably need to do some research to verify that. Until that time, it would be safer to suppose it was and revise the notice on the image page and add Fair Use tag, yes? You want to do that then, or should I? — JamesEG (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the photographer ever publish the photo apart from the book? If the photographer published the photo prior to 1978 without complying with the formalities, then it would be public domain. But if the only publication is inside a copyrighted publication, then it's hard to argue that the copyright lapsed. In fact, prior to 1978, if there wasn't a contract specifying something else, the copyright might have even been transferred to the author of the book. (In the US pre-1978, if you created a copyrighted work and gave the only copy / all copies of that copyrighted work to someone, and you didn't have a contract that specified something else, then the copyright was transferred.) Unless it can be shown that the photo was published without a copyright notice, it's most likely under copyright. (Yes, since she has passed away, fair use is fine - this is images for discussion, not images for deletion, and tagging as fair use is a valid outcome of the discussion.) --B (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should resize it myself so that it appears better in the infobox — where it was meant to be used. However, it seems to me that the question of copyright was agreed to be settled by ‘failing safe’ and assuming one for the publisher of the book. I have since revised the File: page. Did we need that stated explicitly here, or was there something else it needed? — JamesEG (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free now that JamesEG has updated the file description page in the way specified by B. No further action needed, just for someone to close this discussion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:13, 8 September 2018 (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:Please see SDTP Example.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No foreseeable use and no subject can be remotely identified.Unless and until, it's about the ability of homo-sapiens sapiens to hold a paper...... ∯WBG^converse 13:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried googling based on the image title text to see if I could identify any context for the photo. Nope. --Whpq (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FYI, the user had previously uploaded an image called File:SDTP example.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). You might get an idea that you could discover the hidden meaning of an image called "Please see SDTP Example" by looking at "SDTP example". Sadly, the deleted file is just the identical photo with no more clue as to its meaning than in the later file. I fear we may never learn what SDTP is or why we need an example of it. --B (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2018 (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:Harry Chapin 1976.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 2018 September 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Chapin 1976.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:Invisible pink unicorn.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy's logo of the Invisible pink unicorn being used under a claim of fair use. It used to be used on a prior incarnation of invisiblepinkunicorn.com but obviously this is not any sort of official logo so it doesn't qualify for fair use. The creator of this image granted something of an "almost free" license - it can be used commercially, etc, but has the stipulation that it can only be used to "represent atheism". This stipulation makes it not sufficiently free to count as a free content image. (And even if it were free, it isn't sufficiently notable to use anyway ... it's a logo some guy came up with and used for selling t-shirts.) B (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary, and so fails WP:NFCC#8. As pointed out by the nominator, there really isn't an official logo for this concept, so trying to use it in the context of visual identification for the article topic is not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2018 (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:Fidel Castro at the Lincoln Memorial.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Fidel Castro viewing the Lincoln Memorial used under a claim of fair use. It isn't mentioned in the text at all and its use is purely decorative. B (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2018 (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:Yasmin Hankel at ACT Cape Town.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as own work, the image has previously been published on IMDB. Based on username, the uploader and the subject are the same person. Copyright normally is with the photographer and not the subject. OTRS confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (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:Smartphone with Android.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No claim of authorship of the wallpaper images. Without clarification, we can't accept this as free. B (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2018 (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:Big-Bog-Hawaii.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The web page from where this was downloaded does not even say that the University of Hawaii is the creator of the image in the first place. Even if it that were true, UH is not a US governmental agency, and thus PD-USGov does not apply. —howcheng {chat} 20:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2018 (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:Weezer - Feels Like Summer (acoustic).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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to standard cover. Does not pass NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 4 September 2018 (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:Sophie McDonnell & Simon Grant.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 ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the source video shows a Creative Commons license, there is not evidence that the related channel is run by Classic New CBBC. Particularly telling is the channel's about page: "Here we shall be uploading loads of videos of CBBC old and new from 2007 to present in order from the very first day what i have which is Thursday 28th June 2007 right up to present in order." ℯ xplicit 23:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took a look and I concur. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF59R3Q5iPLX0F1S7BL09rw/about is the official CBBC Youtube channel and "classicnewcbbc" just appears to be some guy's youtube page. --B (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2018 (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.