Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19

File:Microvision phaser.jpg

possible derivative of non-free content (packaging) FASTILY 01:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this packaging as too simple for protection and {{pd-textlogo}}, but open to other feedback czar 22:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-license as "non-free" - The front cover may have potential copyright. I found a better version of just packaging artwork, which can replace the current version. The controller and the booklet have the title artwork subject to copyright; they are unnecessary and unneeded. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found the copyright registration no. VA0000052688 at copyright.gov. Also, the registration number for the booklet is TX0000429507. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the registration for the game and booklet text? The actual logos of this image are still ineligible for copyright on their own, no? czar 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... We could use a stand-alone logo for inter-language wikis. However, the artwork must remain in the article. The artwork has a copyright notice identifying the claimant (Milton Bradley). I see that the package contains factual info, so they aren't protected by copyright law. However, the coloring and the background seem a little complex to me when combined with the logo. How would this be different from the more complex derivate of the Car Credit City logo? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pikachu2.jpg

derivative of non-free content (pikachu) FASTILY 01:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question here is whether it would be enough to obscure the LCD Pikachu and keep the black Pikachu, or whether the latter would qualify as de minimis czar 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The black Pikachu is de minimis, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-license as "non-free" - De minimis would not apply. The whole pocket gadget is the main focus of the image and includes the Pikachu screen. Even the tiny black "Pikachu" may not qualify as "de minimis" as it's part of the gadget. The File:Pokémon Pikachu digital pet.JPG is uploaded in Commons, but I don't think it is free to use there. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cranebav.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious PD claim. Since this has never been published before, it would need to meet {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Author is claimed to be Konrad Johannesson, who died in 1968, too recent for PD. If the current copyright holder wants this to be used, see WP:CONSENT - OTRS permission would allow use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Konnie at Winnipeg (small).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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious PD claim. Since this has never been published before, it would need to meet {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Claimed copyright holder is subject, but the copyright holder would be the photographer. Given unknown photographer, this won't be public domain for a while. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Konnie c. 1918.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious PD claim. Since this has never been published before, it would need to meet {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Claimed copyright holder is subject, but the copyright holder would be the photographer. Given unknown photographer, this won't be public domain for a while. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rome 035.1.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 czar 07:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rome 045.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 czar 07:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Voice of freedom broadcast.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: {{di-no source}} czar 07:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from United States Army in World War II, The War in the Pacific: The Fall of the Philippines, and the author (Louis Morton) died in 1976. Therefore, the image is still copyrighted until 2046. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging as unknown source—one week to resolve. If the image is public domain from the military, we need more info on its source. If it is privately copyrighted and originally published in that book, we would need a fair use rationale. Either way, one week to resolve. czar 07:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Granger Community Church Logo—Black 2006.tif

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 26#File:Granger_Community_Church_Logo—Black_2006.tif}}

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:AU books 1.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of cover designs Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FREER - This cannot be conveyed with text nor otherwise replaced with a 100% free version. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how the image is vital to illustrating either of its two current uses, especially based on cited text. The content on the study guides is indeed non-free and would require fair use rationales, but as before, I don't see how the image would pass Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 for contextual significance... czar 08:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Joseph's international Schools, Anaku, March2014.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of artwork in sign design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anime Francis Mateus.webm

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 G5 by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claims sent by owner, in which case it can't be self can it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milad Tower from Hemat Expressway.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referral to FFD as no Freedom Of Panorama in Iran. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crash site of 1931 Jinan Air Crash.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Screenshot (so not necessarily free as claimed). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Timex Expedition WS4 Barometric chart rainy.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: Keep czar 08:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refferal as product design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is referral as product design? Dr. K. 18:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means there may be a copyright in the product design or user interface.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could apply to any product on the planet, including digital watches, computers and cellphones. I don't think this is a valid concern, but if it is all product pictures may have to be deleted from Wikipedia. Dr. K. 18:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe commons:COM:UA is relevant here. A utilitarian object like a watch is generally not afforded copyright protection in the United States. There are many, many photos of watches on Commons. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clpo13: Thank you Clpo13. commons:COM:UA makes it clear that the picture of my watch is not copyrightable. The watch is a utilitarian product and I see no artistic element in the watch design which could exist independently of the watch. The weather icons are generic and the pixels of the bar chart are also generic. The bar chart itself is generic. The design is, therefore, not copyrightable. Dr. K. 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments and per commons:COM:UA. Dr. K. 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a WP:SNOW close? There are no delete votes? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Head Image of the Hindu God Shiva with dreadlocks.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid public domain reasoning. \This image is claimed to be public domain because "A post card I have from India". However, a postcard would be copyrighted by the person or company publishing it. Whpq (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Felix Kersting.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Orphan E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kummel.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 ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-free image (A7 - uploader requested deletion) as the article now has a free image and this one is no longer needed. Free images always preferred over fair use images. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sakaiminato Mizuki Shigeru Road Akaname Statue 1.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: Deleted. no FOP for art in Japan so this'd be a non-free image and would need a rationale for use. I strongly suspect this would then fail to meet the acceptable use criteria of WP:NFC so I've not tried to construct a rationale. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to assume good faith, as this may be folk art, but it wasn't clear from the file description how old the sculpture was ( and I don't read Japanese.). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Japanese Wikipedia, all files on the Japanese Wikipedia must satisfy not only Japanese law, but also the American law of fair use. Assuming that it does not fall afoul of Japanese Wikipedia policies, that means that it necessarily also qualifies as fair use here.--Tosiaki! (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as F6 for conversion to fair use. Issues: (1) The image doesn't match the source. (2) Based on the current source image, likely that the depicted sculpture is in copyright, hence the need for a 3D work fair use tag in addition to the photo's free license. czar 17:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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