Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 28

December 28

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg

File:Robert Hardy Rex Features.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by There'sNoTime (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image was first discussed at Talk:Robert Hardy when the removal was attempted but then reinserted. As the image was further discussed, I discovered that it belongs to Rex Features, which requires a user to register on the behalf of one's own company. This implies that Rex Features has commercial interests in the image, which would fail WP:NFCC#2. However, the uploader (also an admin) disagrees by saying that using the image does not replace its original market role. The image was later published at (umm... mentioning the name would make other groan), which did not credit the original source, yet the uploader cited it until I corrected him. I don't want to continue discussing at the article talk page further as (I believe) local consensus does not override copyright concerns.

Honestly, I'm not nominating this image out of the WP:NFCC#1 concerns. Indeed, I contacted Hillsdale College, which uploaded videos of Robert Hardy's seminars; in response, they would not grant permission to let the videos be used, implying that using the videos would exceed fair use limits. I also contacted other video uploaders and photographers, yet I've not yet received their responses. A screenshot of Hardy in a BBC program(me) would be tolerable, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 resulted in endorsing deletion of another screenshot from a BBC news program(me) due to BBC's commercial interests in the USA. If someone else can upload an irreplaceable image that has very little commercial interests (or a freely licensed image), that would be nice. –George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep The uploaded photo conforms to all the "base" written policy. It fully complies with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW, regarding :Non-free biographical images of the deceased. The image can be replaced in time. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the image of Robert Hardy or Rodney Bewes? George Ho (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you voted on the other, I'll figure that you meant Robert Hardy. Irreplaceable or not, Rex Features may still have commercial interests in this image. Per WP:NFC#UULP, the use is unacceptable. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg

File:Echo City November 2013.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smkphotos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License requires attribution but no author is specified. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about copyright laws and rules, and I strongly suspect the original user Smkphotos, who is also the one who took the photo and made the composite, will not be back here soon. I do however have an email from Smkphotos saying that he was the one who took the photo. Would it be helpful if I forward this email somewhere somehow? Mark in wiki (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dev v burnie 95.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dev v burnie 95.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Forfuxake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious own work. Looks like a professional photo or screenshot of game footage. File lacks metadata to suggest uploader took the photo, in addition, the low resolution of the photo suggests this was taken from elsewhere on the internet, i.e. such low resolution is very unlikely if this is the original/raw file. Flickerd (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Portsmouth FC crests

File:Portsmouth FC crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wutzwz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wanc.co.uk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

These appear to be identical files uploaded under different formats. The svg is being used in the Portsmouth F.C., while the png is being used in Portsmouth F.C. Ladies. I am unable to see any differene between the versions of the logo, so I don't feel both are needed per WP:NFCC#3. The first question is which of the two should be kept and which one should be deleted. The svg appears to be user created and I able unable to verify that it is an original vector version provided by th club. There's been previously been considerable discussion regarding "non-official svgs" on both WT:NFC and WP:MCQ, and no clear-cut consensus has been established (as far as I can find) on their use, but in this case I don't think much if anything is lost for the encyclopedic purpose of primary identification by deleting the svg and keep the png.

The question has to do about the non-free use in Ladies article. The rationale provided for png is for the men's team article, and it appears that an IP (in their only edit) just added the file to the article with this edit without any consideration to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In the case of similar discussions involving the use of the type of logo, non-free use has been generally considered acceptable for articles about the men's team, but not the women's team per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI: the men's team has been seen as the "parent" entity, while women's and youth teams have been seen as "child" entities. I am inclined to say the same with respect to this particular use as well, but if others want to argue differently then please do. If the consensus is that the non-free use in the women's team is acceptable, then a rationale will need to be provided for it to whichever file is kept.

Lastly, I don't see how this can be considered {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it might be OK for {{Pd-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO#United States. In that case, the file would still be only a loal file, but it would be treated as public domain for Wikipedia's purposes. If this is acceptable, then I think both files might be able to be kept; however, this will only be the case if the svg is treated as a simple reproduction of the original image and not a derivative work with its own copyright independent of the source image. In the latter case, Wikipedia could not keep the svg version per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Pattonb.jpg

File:Pattonb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Trehan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to qualify as fair use.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:FUC. Also the file reads "This is an historic image , which relates to an event that cannot be re-staged, therefore it would be impossible to provide a 'free' replacement, meeting the stated purpose." Clearly you don't like the image. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you have not read WP:NFCCP, in particular Contextual significance: 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. Would you care to explain how this low-resolution non-free image is "detrimental"; it definitely is no different to the other tank photos deleted previously. It is also stolen from the internet btw, which is another problem. Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Tanks captured during the Battle of Asal Uttar. Qualifys for Fair Use, since there is no other, free image available connected to the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chalk19: This covers only one of the 10 NFCC, namely WP:NFCC#1 (and that, too, only in part). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep — meets NFCC#8. The photo is a rare one. It shows the destroyed and abandoned Pakistani tanks (nearly 100, most of them US made Patton tanks) lined up by the Indian Army. The area has been known as "Patton Nagar" ever since. —MBL ^Talk 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The photo satisfies WP:NFCCP, especially the point #8. No similar image available. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Both the above !votes are invalid, especially if you actually read point#8. This is one amongst many non-free pictures of abandoned tanks during the 65 war. It is not even a picture of a live scene from the battlefront. It is not in any way "detrimental" to the understanding of the article (quoting the policy verbatim), nor is it helping "significantly increase" a readers' understanding of what is already in the article. It fails both criteria. And above all, it's uploaded as a copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as handily failing WP:NFCC#8. Nothing at the article Battle of Asal Uttar discusses this particular arrangement of captured tanks. In fact, the article mentions the capture of the tanks twice: (1) "Ninety nine Pakistani tanks […] were destroyed or captured", and (2) "This battle led to the creation of Patton Nagar (or "Patton City") at the site of the battle […] because a large number of Patton tanks fielded by the Pakistani forces were either captured or destroyed at the scene." This very beige image does nothing to enhance readers' understanding of this reliably-sourced prose. Removing the copyrighted image from the infobox does not in any way inhibit readers' understanding of the reliably-sourced prose. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Basantar2.jpg

File:Basantar2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deepak~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Nominating for deletion as this fails to qualify for Fair Use per my understanding of the policy. It's a low-quality image which lacks contextual significance and does not increase a readers understanding of the article - nor will its omission affect the article in any way. The uploader, as per their statement, also appears to lack an understanding of fair use laws. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• delete - waste of space. Störm (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:FUC. It does increase understanding of the article and misrepresenting uploader's statement won't do anything. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. Please see below. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Qualifies for Fair Use in the artcle about the battle. But must be removed from the Indian Army article; has no direct connection to the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep – since it satisfies all the criteria of WP:NFCC. And, indeed, this is the only known photo of Indian soldiers taken during the Battle of Basantar, which was a completely one-sided battle. —MBL ^Talk 04:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:NFCCP and very important to Battle of Basantar. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. It's an obvious copyright violation. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs much more discussion about whether WP:NFCC#8 is met; what we see here is rather basic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove from Indian Army, where it clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. I'm neutral on the other article, where I think NFCC#8 could be argued either way. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete this image as failing WP:NFCC#8 in both of its use cases.

  In this image's rationale for use at Indian Army, it says "[the image's] inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of the concerned section of the article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public". The first claim made here is for "shows the subject of the concerned section", and this it does, accompanying the text "Pakistan suffered another major defeat on the western front during the battle of Basantar which was fought from 4 December to the 16th. By the end of the battle, about 66 Pakistani tanks were destroyed and 40 more were captured. In return, Pakistani forces were able to destroy only 11 Indian tanks." However, none of this text is better-understood with the image, and is not less-understood without it. Secondly, the claim of depicting "how the event […] was very historically significant to the general public" has no basis in the text.

  The other rationale is for use at Battle of Asal Uttar, though the image is used in the infobox of Battle of Basantar. In either case, it's rationale for use is "[the image's] inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public". The "subject of the article" is a wartime battle, and though there's uncited prose referring to "[a] fierce tank battle ensued where a Pakistani tank was taken down", that's not what this image depicts. As to showing "how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public": it's people standing on a tank; there's no derivation of public sentiment that can be drawn from it. Lastly, the non-free content guideline specifically lists the illustration of war for its own sake (w/o reliably-sourced critical commentary on the image itself) as an unacceptable use of non-free content. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg

File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeckenhamBear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is dispute as to whether inclusion of this file in Rodney Bewes violates WP:NFCC#1. This is a procedural nomination so that interested parties have a venue to discuss; I am neutral. FASTILY 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @BeckenhamBear, @George Ho, @Stephen. -FASTILY 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Before voting, I would like to say about this image. I'm unsure whether it's replaceable by File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg, which depicts him at an a very later age and is awaiting an OTRS verification, in contrast to this non-free image that depicts the actor/character at a younger age in the '70s. Also, I'm unsure whether BBC has U.S. commercial interests in this screenshot, even when it is a non-profit British television service. The deletion of another file at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 18 was endorsed due to BBC's commercial interests in that file. However, I would say that being a mere screenshot of a fictional element is not a sole reason to remove or delete the image itself. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I added File:Rodney Bewes 2004 (cropped).jpg in the article, but I put it as part of the body article for now until the outcome of this discussion is made. –George Ho (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Moved from the bottom of the section to flow the discussion (...or something like that). George Ho (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I am using the following policy to justify use of this photo:
  • Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo mentioned above is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. This one does. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least).
  • An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo).
  • For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (First he's deceased, and second the rest applies here too, His fame dates from the 1960s and 70's, he never looked remotely the same since out of that era. His features differ greatly from those in the nations consciousness. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is no reliably-sourced prose at Rodney Bewes as to the subject's appearance. Is there an explicit policy or guideline exemption to WP:NFCC#8 for biographies (alive or dead)? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping for @fourthords, Sorry, not sure what you mean? Did you mean inclusion as opposed to exemption? I think the images that can be seen on the internet show the difference already. The uploaded photo conforms to all the "base" written policy. It fully complied with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW, regarding :Non-free biographical images of the deceased. We're losing sight from the reason the Admin deleted the image in the first place; which was (rm NFU image, no evidence of sourcing another image). He was wrong. He didn’t want to give up and then invoked "A screen grab from a TV show showing an actor in a role is not fair use to illustrate the individual, it should only be used to illustrate the role. There was no evidence that anyone had attempted to source a free image of the individual". Wrong again on both points. The topic then started to ramble and was pushed into the whole question of finding an image that connected the man to his fame. That is then when WP:NFCC#8 was mentioned on a secondary qualifying level as the man's appearance had significantly changed so as to be unrecognisable from the days of his fame? When the reader sees the image they should connect the life story article to the man. If they see an image of him at age 79 they just don't do that. That leaves us with this justification: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" Answer: NO. and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Answer: NO. This one TV role in civvies is the only achievement (43 years ago) of this man’s life as far as the great majority of general public is concerned. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  Let me be more elaborative and see if I'm making sense. We're discussing the retention of File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg, which is only being used in the article Rodney Bewes. The non-free content criteria says that "all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 […] criteria are met." The eighth of these criteria says that "[n]on-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." I've read the article at Rodney Bewes, and it has no reliably-sourced prose about Mr. Bewes' appearance at all. Which, then, is the information already in the article that readers simply cannot understand without seeing this photograph of Mr. Bewes? That's the requirement. If that question cannot be satisfied by the article, then this copyrighted file fails the requirements set forth by policy, and may not be used.

  Also, please don't "[c]ourtesy ping" me. You didn't, actually, but please don't do so in the future, either. Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  You want referenced prose that says his appearance has changed? We all do as we get older, some more than others. In this case more. The two photos mentioned show that already. If you read a modern biography of a media person, and you cant connect that prose to an image. Your none the wiser. Anyway it still stands the image was compliant with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUREW. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't want anything in particular. I'm just explaining that the non-free content criteria (a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations") requires that the copyrighted media used in an article be necessary to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you remove File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg from Rodney Bewes, there is nothing reliably-sourced in that article that would be any more difficult to understand. It's unnecessary, and therefore does not meet our requirements. Delete it, barring new reliably-sourced prose that requires its replacement. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  " So your saying it doesn't matter if you cant put a face to a "name" in a media article. Keep --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  I said nothing of the kind, and claiming I did changes none of our relevant policies, guidelines, and/or manuals. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Mooney1.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Mooney1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JimmyJoe87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

missing verifiable source; was also deleted at Commons for the same reason FASTILY 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – this photo is not found on the Congressman's current House website, nor is it found on his official Facebook page or official Twitter account. Plus, this photo looks a little different than the one uploaded here. I've asked for an exact link to the image (same h×w size) and none has been given. This can be seen at the Commons deletion request listed above. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like the file has been used here at least as far back as February 15, 2016. That website, however, is protected by copyright which means if that's where the image originated, then probably it can't be uploaded as {{PD-USgov}}. Same file seems to also be being used here as far back as November 2015, but in a much smaller size and with the same copyright issues. My guess is that this might be an older official photo that the Congressman's staff was using for PR purposes; it may even be an official photo taken by a US government employee, but not sure if Wikipedia can automatically assume that without a proper source. Maybe the thing to do here would be to tag the file with {{npd}} to give the uploader a chance to send something to OTRS for verification purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: This portrait should not be deleted because this is Congressman Mooney's Official Congressional portrait. The portrait that was used until today: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Mooney.jpg is just a zoomed in version of this very photo. Furthermore here is the same portrait from the Congress website: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001195 JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Commons photo and what we're discussing here don't look like the same photo to me. The Wikipedia photo has a flag in the background that background, while the Commons one doesn't. Also, the link you've provided says "Image courtesy of the Member" which means the website is hosting the photo, but is not necessarily the original source of the photo. The photo was deleted fron Commons because there was a problem with its licensing. There's no reason to host this type of photo locally on Wikipedia if it's truly PD-USgov. You should've started a c:COM:DRV for the image on Commons and made your case there instead of re-uploading it to Wikipedia. If you can't convince Commons that the licensing it appropriate, Wikipedia shouldn't accept it either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Its exactly the same photo, but zoomed in, just using his face and they have coloured in the background. I can show you more than a dozen photos like it for Members of Congress from Commons if needs be. Actually whether the website is hosting or not, the fact that it has been published on a Congressional Website means that legally it is allowed to be used. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ummmm... not necessarily. Just because a photo is on a US Government website doesn't mean it's been taken by a government official and released into the Public Domain. A prime example was Trump and Pence's transition portraits which were displayed on the White House website for 10 months. The photographer was not a government employee and did not release their works in PD. All you need is to provide an exact URL to the picture on his website or have his office send permission to the OTRS team. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're sure they've colored the background, then I believe that would make it a derivative of that one you uploaded, which then means that the copyright status of the original photo also needs to be taken into account. If the original copyright photo is not PD, then the derivative on Commons might not be PD as well. Finally, as Corkeythehornetfan points out, I don't believe a US government website hosting a file automatically means a transfer of copyright ownership as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works. Still having said all this, this type of PD-USgov file, in my opinion, does not really need to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia; it's better of on Commons, which is why you should start an undeletion request for it there and explain why the file should be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#File:Alex Mooney.jpg. I think this would be better to sort this out first at Commons DRV because if this is really PD-USgov then it should be on Commons. Keeping the file will likely mean that someone will eventually tag the file for a move to Commons, which will in turn probably mean re-deletion unless things are sorted out over there first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per comments by Marchjuly and Corkythehornetfan above. The photo shown here is captioned "Image courtesy of the Member". This could mean a photographer he employed to take photos of him. It certainly does NOT mean the photographer is/was a USG employee. The idea that all images shown on USG websites are in the public domain isn't true either.

An example would be online images at Library of Congress. That's a USG website but all the images hosted on it are NOT free. If you spend any time there, you'll see a tab to click for "Rights" assessment of a given image. There are many which say the image may NOT be in the public domain and that one must make one's own determinations about that. LOC has a collection of sheet music, some of which have covers on their site. Having the music does NOT mean LOC owns the rights to the sheet music-it means LOC has a copy they chose to take a photo of and display on the website.

Many of their online photos were gifts to the library from their respective photographers, such as the Gottlieb Collection. In this case, Gottlieb or his estate waived all rights to the photos and they are in the PD. The Mooney photo has no clear-cut proof that it is in the PD via being a government work; the tag "Image courtesy of the Member" implies that it was not taken by a government employee. We hope (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg

File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs | uploads | [Special:Log/upload/SlimVirgin|upload log]). 

Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Given that the subject died 20 years ago and only spent three years of her adult life not in prison, it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free-use equivalent, and it has no commercial value. The only potential issue is whether NFCC8 is satisfied, but I'd argue that "what did this person look like?" is almost always going to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, particularly in an article like this where this particular image illustrates the physical condition she was in on her release. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Non-replaceability is not at issue. If this is being used only as the primary means of identification for a deceased person, then per WP:NFCC#3b, the image should be cropped to show the specific individual. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an historically important image of three women—the defendant and the two women from Justice for Women who arranged her defence—leaving the Old Bailey after taking an important step (as I understand it) toward changing English law on provocation. It is one of a series of Old Bailey images of its kind at that time, after several miscarriages of justice, something British editors old enough to remember will be well aware of.
  I'm not aware of any free versions. The defendant has died so other images of her are not available. I'll be expanding the article to explain why the verdict was important and what role Justice for Women played. NFCC#8 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." That seems to fit this very well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the article at the tme of nomination to support this as an historic image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said above, I'll be expanding it. There are links on the file page if you'd like to know more, or you can watch this. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Whpq, could you say, please, whether you're satisfied with the additional information? There are links and an explanation on the file page. The image caption in the article, Emma Humphreys, explains more about the image, links to a video showing coverage and commentary on the release—including commentary from the BBC about the scene on the steps of the Old Bailey—and contains a quote from The Independent: "Pale, nervous and very thin, she was engulfed by dozens of cheering women and children outside the courts." The section R v Humphreys explains the legal significance of the verdict and describes the involvement of Justice for Women (i.e. the women in the non-free image). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as both unrationaled to any recognizable purpose, and unexplanatory as to its meeting of WP:NFCC or WP:NFC. According to the non-free use rationale for this image, its purpose is "Lead image"; I'm unaware of any policy, guideline, or manual that allows the inclusion of copyrighted material just because it's purpose is to be an image in the lead. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dragonchess images

File:Dragonchess 'The Ground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Dragonchess 'The Sky Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Dragonchess 'The Underground Board' by Zac Dortch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihardlythinkso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A visit to the source indicates that these images are non-free, not CC 3.0 as indicated. That makes sense, since the board game itself is likely non-free. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Before uploading to WP I asked & received permission from the owner to use his photos for the WP article. The correspondence was done on the BGG site internal mail system. I saved copy of said correspondence. --IHTS (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: If the copyright holder has given their permission to Wikipedia (not just to you) for the files to be uploaded under such a license, then I think there are two possibilities here: (1) they can add the licensing to the pages where files are found; or (2) they can provide verification via OTRS. There's more information about this in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. I'm not sure if forwarding the email(s) you received would be acceptable, so I'll ping Yunshui. Yunshui's an OTRS volunteer and should be able to provide more specific guidance. Regardless, since you are not the original copyright holder, the licensing cannot be verified on the source you've given, and the files do not appear old enough for c:COM:GOF, I believe some kind of OTRS verification is going to be needed. One thing about this license is that even though the copyright holder might still claim the image as being copyrighted on their website, anyone can get the image "free of copyright" from Wikipedia to use in any way they want (including derivatives and commercial use), and a "free" license cannot be revoked after the fact. Another thing is that if this license is eventually verified, there's no real reason to host this file locally on Wikipedia in my opinion, and it would be better off on Commons instead per WP:MTC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Forwarded emails aren't generally accepted, I'm afraid; if you take the OTRS route we need the permission to be sent from Zac Dortch himself (ideally using the DoC wording). Copies of a conversation on another site's messaging system wouldn't constitute sufficient declaration of consent for OTRS purposes. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Figured as much, but thx. Appreciate the link (makes simpler for me). I'll see what I can do. p.s. I've no desire to become wiki-lawyer, but am curious: why isn't copy of copyright holder's response to "Wiki policy requires permission from the photo owner" of "Certainly. You have my permission to use any of my photos as you see fit. Thanks for asking." on Board Game Geek (photos' source) internal mail system not fulfillment of CC BY-SA 3.0 language permission test? (I don't mean to be a pain by asking.) p.p.s. Yunshui, do you mind if I use you as mentor at your Talk if I have Qs re permissions on other issues -- I have some photos removed from other articles too that I'd like to get restored, OTRS is a de-motivating & confusing house of mirrors to someone w/o experience etc. --IHTS (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you know you're welcome at my talkpage anytime; I'll help if I can. With regards to satiating your curiosity; the basic line taken at OTRS is that the copyright holder has to specifically state the terms of the licence they are releasing content under (I guess the statement above would count as releasing into the public domain, rather than a CC licence, but it's not 100% clear) - we also have to hear it from them. Statements like, "you can use my pictures on Wikipedia" aren't licence-specific enough, so we don't accept them. Appreciate that sending permission requests to OTRS is somewhat disheartening; if it makes you feel any better, reviewing them (at the time of writing there are well over 1,000 requests in the queue) is even less of a picnic... Yunshui ^雲_水 09:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx! (And yeah, it makes me feel better. :lol: ) --IHTS (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Haraldskaer mermaid nationalmuseet.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Haraldskaer mermaid nationalmuseet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reubentg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Putting up on request at OTRS 2017112610006509 Poster claims it is a fake image and it is not in the national Museum in Copenhagen. Any Danish editors around? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Manse.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Manse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page. Sirensofyesterday (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Indian Millets.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Indian Millets.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hridith Sudev Nambiar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sources and licenses here are very unclear. Only one image is explicitly linked in the summary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Fake Map of Bengal.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Fake Map of Bengal.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ganesha811 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We should not host an "alternative history" map. No encyclopedic purpose. WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, used only in the uploader’s sandbox, which is about the fictional country portrayed in the map. We have fake maps like this one, but they are all in relation to notable works of fiction. For the sandbox, I’m going to MfD it. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant hoax and its name confirm that. It is even eligible for {{db-hoax}} speedy deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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.