Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 5

September 5

File:WLNY New York 55 2023.svg

Not found at the given source, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure how something, particularly a logo, can be said to be both CC-licensed and "This copyright was belonging to everyone." (Granted, this would almost certainly be a {{PD-textlogo}} well below the threshold of originality anyway, but I've also yet to see any solid evidence that WLNY-TV has actively switched to this logo.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewscastStudio says the station has debuted (or will debut) the new logo. If anyone in the NYC area is watching WLNY-55 right now, do you see any change in branding? TheCatLife (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elgin-WWII.jpg

Judging by the description on the file page, the uploader and the creator of the image are not the same person. There is no evidence that the creator released the image under a free license. — Ирука¹³ 09:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File page: Digital image from the Tim Davenport collection

Uploader's userpage: best, Tim Davenport

As noted in my edit summary removing the F11 tag, this is not a statement on the file itself; watches sound like exactly the sort of thing where there's some arcane status putting things technically in copyright (though as I've seen Premeditated Chaos note on WT:DYK a lot lately, clothes don't have that, so watches might not either -- will see if she knows anything specific). It is a statement about doing your due dilligence. Contrary to your rather strange reply when I politely informed you of a mistake many newer patrollers make before learning, people are expected to double-check something's status before nominating it for deletion. There is a long and complex history regarding files in particular (this thread is an interesting summary of some past issues), and repeated rapid deletion nominations both without checking context and while actively saying you don't need to is something with an ignonimous precedent. Vaticidalprophet 09:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume a watch would be the same type of utilitarian object for the purpose of US copyright law. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree regarding the watch, which doesn't seem to have any particular separable artistic quality to it (see also c:Commons:To_be_utilitarian_or_not_to_be_utilitarian). I must say though that Digital image from the Tim Davenport collection is an odd way of crediting oneself as the photographer. One could be collecting all sorts of things one hasn't created. Felix QW (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alejandro Scopelli.jpg

There is no evidence that the photo was published before 1989. — Ирука¹³ 09:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sherlock Holmes Portrait Paget cropped.jpg

An unused and, judging by the edit history, never used, easily reproducible image. — Ирука¹³ 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial photograph of Westdene, Johannesburg in 1952.png

South African copyright will not have expired before 2003, late enough for the image to have been caught up in URAA restorations. So it seems it will be copyrighted in the US until 2047. Felix QW (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bubble and Squeek, from the cartoon.png

The cartoon is claimed to be in the public domain since its copyright was not renewed, but as it is a British production first published there, that is not relevant. While I do not know the death date of creator George Moreno Jr. the cartoon is unlikely to be in the public domain in the UK and is certainly still in copyright in the US until 2043. Felix QW (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian minesweeper Crotone.jpeg

There is not enough information to conclude the image's license status in its country of origin. — Ирука¹³ 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you questioning the claim of the NHHC regarding its status? It has a typewritten caption that states it was originally an ONI photograph (Office of Naval Intelligence). It passed FAC image review by an experienced image reviewer without any questions. The Naval History & Heritage Command states that it holds copyright over the image, and given it was an ONI image, that is hardly surprising. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What country's citizen took this picture? — Ирука¹³ 22:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A US Govt employee. The image is one from the Office of Naval Intelligence, the intelligence agency of the US Navy. If you read the typewritten caption at the NHHC link, that is obvious. For clarity I have changed the license to the PD-USGov one, although I am sure the NHHC PD-Because licence was also fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken by a citizen of the country in which the ship was based. The citizen gave the picture to the US Govt employee. — Ирука¹³ 02:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of that claim. All that is necessary and relevant here is the image caption, that it is an ONI photograph. Kges1901 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, and the unsubstantiated statement that a photo of a ship outside the US was taken by US employees - even intelligence - in 1938 is a good reason for using c:COM:PCP. — Ирука¹³ 03:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peacemaker's and Kges' comments here and Buidhe's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galeb-class minelayer/archive1, where I have absolutely no doubt any licensing concern would have come up. FAC image reviews are...not softhearted. Even if the image's licensing status in a non-US country mattered and it wasn't PD there, enwiki permits PD-US images that aren't PD-elsewhere -- what evidence do you have that all of these apply? Vaticidalprophet 05:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep English wikipedia's servers are located in the US, so what matters is the US copyright status, and that is very clear. Commons does have different rules. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Union Station art.jpg

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works of art in the US FASTILY 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]