Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18

January 18

File:Bernardo Brusca.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⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

This file is licensed as {{PD-Italy}}, but it's copyright status in the US is unclear. This was discussed at WP:MCQ#File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg where it was suggested that the file is likely PD in Italy, but not in the US. I'm pretty sure this means that the file needs to be treated as non-free content on Engosh Wikipedia. If that's the case, then the file is lacking the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c which means it can possibly be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6.

The reason I've started this discussion is because even if a rationale is provided, I'm not sure it would be valid per WP:JUSTONE given the way the file is currently being used in Giovanni Brusca. Non-free photos of deceased individuals are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about the person depicted in the photo, but they are much harder to justify when used in other ways. This is a photo of the father of Brusca and the context for using it required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking: simply wanting the reader to see what Brusca's father looked like is not enough of a justification in my opinion. So, unless it can be shown that this is PD in both Italy and the US: or it's non-free use in the Brusca article or some other article can be justified per WP:NFCCP, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 18 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.

File:ManWolfSpiderManUnlimited.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⚡ 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:48, 18 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.

Non-free road signs used in list article

File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:British Columbia Highway 113.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free images of highway signs being used in List of British Columbia provincial highways. Each of the files is being used in a stand-alone article about the highways in question as the primary means of identification in the main infobox. This type of decorative usage in more general list articles, however, is almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost never provided and the usage is more decorative than not. The files were removed per WP:NFCCE for lacking the non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. Rationales have since been added for two of the three articles, but the primary justification for their use as explained at User talk:Fhsig13#Non-free image use is that they are they are significant to this particular page as well as a bit of WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. I believe the rationales were added in good-faith; I just think this type of non-free use can be justified per current policy and moreover appear to just be copied-and-pasted ones which don't really specifically address the particular ways the files are being used. Suggest keep for the stand-alone articles where the files are being used and remove from the list article.

However, there might be some question as to whether these files need to be treated as non-free content to begin with. If it's possible to convert them to {{PD-Canada}} as some of the other files used in the article are licensed, then there would be no longer any non-free concerns and the files could be used. It should be noted though that a file such as File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is almost certainly not "own work", which is something requiring further discussion from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would include File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png as part of the larger discussion as to whether they should be classified as "non-free". On the ground, the representation of the these highways is shown by those shields, not the standard provincial shields, so I would argue that the usage is more than decorative. Trans-Canada shields are shown throughout (as well as Interstate, US, and SR route shields for US articles), so Yellowhead and Crowsnest shields should be r evisited. I'm not sure about the intricacies of image copyright law, but IMO that should be the end goal. MuzikMachine (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The file's non-free use seems fine in the stand-alone articles about each route. It is only in the list article, where I feel their use is decorative. Whether they are actual representations of what is seen by drivers is a different question and if they are not then perhaps they shouldn't be being used in any articles regardless of their licensing. The "first goal" when it comes to using images on Wikipedia has to do with WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. This is what needs to be clarified before anything else because this is what basically determines whether a file may be kept and how it may be used if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My point is that those images is what is seen by drivers, so files such as File:BC-3.svg, File:BC-5.svg, and File:Alberta Highway 3.svg actually provide an inaccurate representation of what drivers would see. As such, there should be some sort of solution to be able to include those images in other articles such as highway lists and road junction lists while maintaining WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. If they need to stay as non-free, then that's what it has to be; however if they are misclassified, then that should be explored. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use non-free versions of the actual shield imagery in the stand-alone articles about the individual routes themselves if they need to be treted as non-free for copyright license purposes. In such an article, the file would most likely be used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of the article. It's also likely that such an article would be the best place to include a sourced critical commentary about the shield (i.e., it's origin, design, etc.). This is a type of use commonly accepted for non-free logos and other non-free files, so I don't think it would be an issue as long as WP:NFCC#1 is met.

I don't think the same can be said about the list article where the file is being used to illustrate one entry among many. These entries just provide some basic information about each route and identification by name alone and links to the more detailed individual articles where more specific information, including the shield/signage used, is provided for the reader is more than sufficient. This is similar to the reasoning used when it comes to non-free cover art being used in discographies, bibliographies, filmographies and such. In such cases, non-free use only tends to be allowed when they are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary within the list article as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. This type of use is not exactly the same as using a non-free album cover in a discography article, but it's similar enough in my opinion for the same reasoning to be applied.

If the files being used in the individual articles are incorrect, then they should be replaced. In the list article, however, any PD file's currently used in that article are inaccurate representations can be removed as well, but removing them does not automatically mean replacing them with a non-free image: they simply can be replaced by a generic shield placeholder image, or no image at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: So what would be a workaround solution? I've seen some provincial highway shields where certain symbols were modified to vectors in order to become commons files. As far as the Yellowhead marker is concerned, how could that be done? What was done so the Trans-Canada highway shield could be used en masse? -- MuzikMachine (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what file your referring to when you say "Trans-Canada highway shield". As for changing pngs, etc. to vector versions, I think it would be better to use a official vector version released by the original copyright holder instead. There's some disagreement as to whether user-created svgs can be accepted as non-free use on Wikipedia, and while I see lots of vector-versions of logos uploaded to Commons as "own work", I think that quite a number of them just have yet to undergo a proper license view. Commons, like Wikipedia, runs on volunteer power and there are more files being uploaded than can be properly reviewed; so, many last for years before they are noticed. There was something about the Yellowhead image that I'd seen before, but I couldn't remember until now. A photo of it was discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:YellowheadShield.jpg and eventually was kept; there's also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png. Maybe there's some information in those two Commons DRs which can be helpful here. It should be pointed out though that File:Yellowhead.png is licensed as non-free, and that element is what seems to be the only thing copyrightable in the Yellowhead shield files; if that can be shown to be PD, then the others could also most likely be treated as PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Nevermind re: the Trans-Canada, it's more than 50 years old. Is there a process or form letter we can send to the BCMoT requesting permission to use the Yellowhead 5 shield as PD? -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, I moved your post because I think this is where you wanted it to go. If I'm wrong, please move it back. As for emailing someone, there is WP:ERP and c:COM:ET which can be used, but you can use your own wording as well. As long as you cover the main points of what makes ups a suitable free license for Commons use, then you should be fine. The BCMoT, however, cannot just declare that the file is PD/freely release for Wikipedia/educational purposes only; so, the BCMoT needs to undertand that they cannot restrict commercial or derivative use. Ideally, if they were tto agree to such a thing, the best thing would be for someone at the BCMoT to uploaded a version of the file to Commons using c:Commons:Upload Wizard; If they don't want to do this, however, then someone from the BCMoT will like have to email OTRS from some kind of official BCMoT address. This appears to be what SriMesh did with repsect to the Saskatchewan road signs discussed in those two Commons DRs I linked to above in my previous post. SriMesh seems to still be active editing so perhaps you can ask for some suggestions on how to best approach the BCMot on their user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As I mention below, we have clearance for crown copyright, which is 50 years, January 1st, after publication. Provincial copyright falls under crown copyright. If there is any proof these signs existed in or prior to 1967, we have no issue and these are public domain. The question is whether we can find an example of these shields prior to then. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the images, as they pose an enormous amount of significance to the page, an NO free equivalents exist. The sign for File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is my own work, as I saved a template of a blank Yellowhead sign, and added the number "16" myself, before uploading under it's current name. I will also add a non-free use rationales for File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg, I apologize for it not being there before, however I did not realize that it was implicated here. Lastly, I wish to add that if the owner of the images, (or the uploader), take issue with there use, I will gladly remove them. I suggest keep for the images in both the list, as well as the standalone articles. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How do these pose an enourmous amount of significance to the page? Please clarify. The article is a list of highway/routes with a brief discription of each. Each of these routes has a stand-alone article which is linked to from the article, so if the reader wants to know more about each that is where they will go. The stand-alone articles is where the non-free can be used because that is where they are being used as the primary means of identification and that is where any sourced critical commentary about the sign's imagery, etc. is more likely to be found. A list article such as this is not really all that different from "List of notable people", "List of books by", "List of albums by","List of films by", "List of flags", "List of symbols of", etc.; this type non-free use of pictures of deceased persons, album covers, book covers, movie posters, flags, symbols, etc. in those types of articles is pretty much never allowed for the same reasons given above in my nomination statement.

You're also arguing that no free equivalents exist for any of these images, yet you state that File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is a free image which you created. I'm not sure it's free (more on that below); however, if it is, then you have indeed created a free equivalent which means you or someone else can repeat the process and do the same for the three non-free being discussed here. This would make keeping non-free verisions of the files also questionable per WP:NFCC#1. Even if they cannot be reproduced exactly, the official non-free version might be able to be kept for the stand-alone articles, and a user-created representation could possibly be created for use in the list article.

As for being your own work, I'm not so sure. If you're basing your "own work" on another copyrighted image, then there's a good chance it would be considered a derivative work. In that case, the copyright of the original work as well as the derivative need to be taken into account. If the original is something in the public domain or something released under a free license, you can license the derivative under a CC license; if not, then you need to have the permission of the not only the creator of the derivative, but also the original coyright holder to release the file under a free license. So unless you can show both, then there's a chance it will be deleted from Commons.-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can we determine the age of these? If these were designed before December 31, 1967, they are public domain under federal law (which also applies to provincial governments, but not municipal). We have clearance from the Canadian government that expiration of crown copyright applies worldwide over URAA. If they are newer, I see no reason we can't use the generic shield on list articles. That withstanding, the use in the infobox of the article of the particular route qualify as acceptible free-use. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If these can be converted to PD for one reason or another, then they would much easier to use in articles such as the list article because they would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Otherwise, I agree that a generic shield can and should be used in the list article; each list entry has a link and the reader can see the proper sign/shield there per item #6 of WP:NFC#UUI -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Floydian: The Yellowhead Highway Association was founded in 1949, the are the origional copyright holders of the yellow head and trees logo. The various provinces produced their own variations within their respective highway templates. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added the images, as they should not be removed until this discussion is closed. In addition, There are, as I stated, no free equivalents of these signs, and the Route 16 sign was one I made, yes, however I am not good enough at my editing to successfully recreate the rest. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A free equivlent image does not have to be recreated by you; it can be recreated by anyone. It also doesn't have to be recreated right at this moment; it can be created at anytime. What tends to matter with respect to WP:NFCC#1 is not that a free equivalent currently exists, but whether it's considered possible for someone somehwere to create one. Since you're saying you used a template to create the free equivalent image File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, then there's no reason somebody cannot do the same for File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg, and possibly the other files being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: Are either File:Yellowhead.png or File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png the "template" you mentioned above that you used to create File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png ? Did you download either of those non-free files from Wikipedia, add the number "16", and then upload the your versoin to Commons? If that's the case, then I think you probably did create a derivative work. You can claim the derivative as "own work" and license it as such if you want, but I don't believe you can make the same claim for the original underlying imagery. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to this webpage, which redirects to here. It looks like the Yellowshield sign can be found here. Copyright for the all the content on that website is being claimed by the BC government here, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. If the original imagery is not PD or otherwise released under a free license, then I don't think Commons can keep your version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Update: Based upon the close of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, it now seems possible that the same OTRS ticket referred to in that discussion might also cover File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg. If that's the case, then file's use would no longer be subject to WP:NFCCP and it's licensing can be converted to an appropriate free license. However, this also seems to mean that File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png can now be used to create freely licensed derivatives, which means that any non-free files of the same Yellowhead shield imagery now fail WP:NFCC#1 and would need to be deleted if for some reason their licensing cannot be converted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: As I alluded to at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, Ticket:2011011410009399 covers all highway signs in Canada with an official statement that we shouldn't need permission, implying that the signs are Public Domain under Canadian copyright law, but cautioning that photographers should make sure they and passing motorists are safe while they are photographing the signs. Hours after that DR closed, I emailed the person who made that statement with copies to his CC recipients to update the ticket to modern standards per @Jcb's concern; I have not heard back from him, and the copies bounced with "no such user" errors (not surprising after seven years). I appreciate the abundance of caution used by uploaders, NFCC taggers, and the nominator in this case, but I do not think such caution is warranted in this case.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Ganjamarsh.jpg

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

File is not source code, so fail to see why this GPL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right, on srwiki it says the file is GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0, and not GPL. The license should be corrected.

PS. The file was reuploaded from the Serbian language wikipedia where User:Mladifilozof sent it into the public domain. Original file at https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Ganjamarsh.jpg Aleksamil (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The copyright tag on srwiki has GNU and CC logos, so presumably it's not in the public domain but licensed under some licences from those organisations. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment on 30 August 2006 which says "Предајем ову слику у јавно власништво." meaning the image is submitted to the public domain. The tag is gfdl-self. Perhaps the tag should be edited to gfdl, instead of gpl? Aleksamil (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:22, 20 September 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) 08:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The original uploader may have claimed to have put the image into PD, but the copyright tag they uploaded is {{GFDL-self}}. So relicensing it as that seems to be the correct move. Or rather, when they uploaded the text of that template on srwiki was "subject to disclaimers", {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note that the file wasn't uploaded with our {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} but with a link to the Serbian disclaimer. I believe that we are required to link to the disclaimer chosen by the uploader (in this case, the Serbian one). Commons has c:Template:GFDL-disclamers which allows you to choose the right disclaimer, but I don't think we have anything similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Materialscientist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo has a subsisting copyright in the United States because Sweden has long-standing copyright relations with the United States. This could be converted to non-free use for use in John Franklin Enders, but would need to be removed from List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Negative. The most recent Swedish copyright law was adopted in 1994, before the URAA date of 1 January 1996. According to that law, photos taken before 1 January 1969 are out of copyright. In other words, {{PD-Sweden}} files automatically comply with URAA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 21 September 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) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to say that URAA copyright does not apply to this image as it was already PD in Sweden before the URAA date. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights such "subsisting rights" apply to foreign-made works that would be copyrighted in the US if made there and it's not clear that this would be the case here given {{PD-US-no notice}}; especially when first made abroad such a photo is unlikely to have a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don’t think this photo is covered by Swedish law, The Nobel website doesn’t indicate where such photos were taken before 2007. It is possible it was taken in the US, where Enders lived and worked. I’ve come across what appears to be a fuller copy at NAP.edu which says the photo was courtesy of "William Charles of Beverly". I’m not sure if this person is the photographer or not but it does suggest the photo might be covered by US law. Green Giant (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Convert to non-free use. Following my earlier comment, this photo was almost certainly taken in the US, but the date is unclear. I have found an obituary at legacy.com, which says that a Leonard Levy bought the William Charles Studio in Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1950 and ran it for about 40 years. I suspect either Levy or one of his staff (if he had any) took this photo. Levy died in 2008 according to the obituary, so I think it will not be in the public domain in the US until 2079. Green Giant (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Convert to fair use.  samee  ^talk 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Swaminarayan charity old.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: The linked OTRS ticket does not mention this file. Going to go ahead and delete unless someone has new details/information to share. -FASTILY 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Swaminarayan charity old.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AroundTheGlobe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10#File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg, this is just the older version. But the license is clear as mud. We need an explanation from the uploader or someone at OTRS to clarify it the license refers to this file as well. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The OTRS tag was added by User:Peripitus, and it seems that there were already two files in the history at that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 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.

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)

Delete, as it appears to be a commercial photograph from Rex Features Ltd., which is pretty specific about not allowing its use outside the terms of a license. --Holdek (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Echo City November 2013.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: Resolved. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm fine with accepting that on good faith; we just needed to know who the author actually was. Pinging relister Hhhhhkohhhhh (I tried typing that but decided copy/paste was the way to go...), who should be good to close this early as more-or-less withdrawn. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:45, 20 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.

Portsmouth FC crests

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 the PNG version; no consensus for any license change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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 local 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I don't particularly see its use in the women's article as being necessary. Nonetheless, changing the license template and getting rid of the SVG may also be a good path. Not sure whether it would be worthy of any use though. !dave 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the PNG - I don't see any problem with having the logo on both articles, but we only need one version. Since SVGs are apparently okay, even for non-free works, I'd say we should delete the PNG and replace it with the SVG in the Portsmouth Ladies article. – PeeJay 16:06, 1 February 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.

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)

  More like WP:IDONTLIKEIT from you. Sure the image helped you enough that you nominated it here, which goes well with your POV pushing. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The image looks like a painting, is of poor quality - one cant even make out which kind of tanks have been lined up.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly qualifies free use. Nomination reads like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Nobody before you has argued that this file is freely-usable; how is it "clearly" so? The only self-insertion of Mar4d (talk · contribs) in their nomination is the line "per my understanding of the policy", and I'm not sure how to interpret that as their saying "I don't like it." — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  That is how he is evading the fact that he just don't like the image. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I question your ability to know my motives, feelings, and personal thoughts without actually sharing my skull. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep specifically per WP:NFCC#1 - a non-replaceable image. --RaviC (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Nom" has not given any policy based reasoning to delete image, but "my understanding". Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:NFCCP#8.  samee  ^talk 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  Meets WP:NFCCP#8, clearly helps reader's understanding of the subject by showing captured Pakistani tanks. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Meets NFCCP #8 Anmolbhat (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom. The quality is poor and does not necessarily add anything significant to the articles it is being attached to.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 08:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly qualifies free use. Nomination is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Though removing from Indian Army should be enough. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep clearly qualifies for the Battle of Basantar article. --RaviC (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Poor quality.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:NFCCP#8.  samee  ^talk 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Meets WP:NFCCP#8, shows the seizure of Pakistani tank as part of the battle for Battle of Basantar. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per above; meets WP:NFCCP#8 Anmolbhat (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Dragonchess images

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. Until permission is forthcoming; if OTRS accepts a permission statement just ask for undeletion on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:51, 18 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.

File:Kashinath-img.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Stephen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kashinath-img.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ganeshprasadkp (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a screencap. Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:36, 18 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.

File:Tasya Teles.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Tasya Teles.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Garyjones027 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFC#UUI #1 - no fair use pictures of living people. GRuban (talk) 21:14, 18 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.