Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19

File:Rhodesia ten shillings 1968.jpg

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhodesia one pound 1968.jpg

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhodesia five pounds 1966.jpg

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:UDI signing.jpg

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cape-lefkada-sideris.jpg

Permission from "Laki Sideris" needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AR Rahman and MU Glee Club Student Conductor.jpg

Exif date doesn't match what's stated in {{Information}}. Permission needed from "Corbin Mathias" as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conf Entry.JPG

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huddle Space.JPG

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open Office Entry.JPG

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Novus Int. Lobby.JPG

Per Exif, "Alise O'Brien" is the copyright holder and there is no indication whether the uploader (Rcollin8) is of said person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Car photo.jpg

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gig photo.jpg

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scotland photo.jpg

Small, low-res, no metadata, watermarked (top left corner). Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blinka.png

The contents of the .license files in the repository suggest this image is available under the CC-BY-4.0 license. [1] Also, there is a superior SVG version available. [2] Ixfd64 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled, from Ed Clark's "Taos series" (1981); dry pigment on paper.jpg

Photograph of 2D artwork, author lived in US, died in 2019. Not PD until 2019+70=2089; derivative of non-free content. Can't be converted to fair use either, as it would fail WP:NFCC#8; the file is currently being used decoratively, there is no critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious use in the article Edward Clark (artist) besides decoration. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork in question is illustrative of the technique of the artist who is the subject of the article. Providing a visual example of what is discussed in the text is hardly "decorative." It's essential. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the image isn't discussed in-depth in the text, and no, a cursory one or two sentence blurb isn't going to cut it. -FASTILY 02:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP has dozens of bio articles on artists with illustrations of works that are not specifically mentioned by name in the text, but that are representative of the artist's technique described in detail in the text (see Rauschenberg, Gilliam, Stella, Twombley, Barnett Newman et al.). In this case, "...He picked up a janitor’s push broom. Especially later when he placed the canvas on the floor, the broom in Clark’s hands spread color in wide, often horizontal swaths that spoke of energy and speed. He called it his 'big sweep.' From oils in his early years, he moved on to brilliant acrylics on large canvases, and softer, quieter dry pigments on paper. Though abstract, the compositions could sometimes suggest ethereal landscapes, even human forms. He had his signature colors as well. Pink 'is to him what orange was to Cezanne and yellow to Van Gogh,' wrote art critic April Kingsley." When a work is mentioned in the text, the mention is usually cursory, as having fetched so much at auction, or as being illustrative of his early work, etc. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]