Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

File:Doraemon Minna de Yuubou!.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2015 (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:Gwangju Gwangsan FC.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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3: the article already has a different logo. Stefan2 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2015 (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:SFA Block Letters.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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD logo; New logo has been uploaded. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 14:47, 7 March 2015 (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:Apple Pay promotional hero.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: No Consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3 for two reasons: (1) this is a 3D photo where a screenshot (or two screenshots, or a montage of screenshots) would suffice. (2) This screenshot incorporates copyrighted credit cards where a screenshot could be taken incorporating only {{PD-ineligible}} credit cards (or other payment methods). B (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single screenshot would provide insufficient context for the service, as its integration with the iPhone and Apple Watch as devices is its landmark feature. Such a screenshot or series of screenshots with redacted elements would not qualify as PD-ineligible due to its unique composition of elements, and furthermore, would insufficiently demonstrate the functionality of the application. There is also a discrepancy on what constitutes "creative elements" in the logos, as the Chase Freedom logo recommended on my talk page uses the Chase (bank) logo, which is currently uploaded under fair use. Related discussion also at User talk:Masem#File:Apple Pay promotional hero.jpg. All of this bureaucracy aside, if an actual image existed that had the PD logos as you suggest and the iPhone/Apple Watch context, I'd be happy to delete this one in a flash, even minding that it would only be minimally freer: the app's layout is itself a creative work that would still need a fair use license. czar ⨹ 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chase logo is probably tagged as copyrighted in error. In the earlier days of Wikipedia, we incorrectly treated all logos as copyrighted, but we now know that simple mostly text logos do not have copyright protection - only trademark protection. For example, the Best Western logo is a famous example of a logo that is not considered copyrighted in the US and this Chase logo is less complex than that. --B (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On point 1, since the photo is Apple's copyright atop their copyright of the layout of the UI for the program, its a single copyright for all we care about, so it doesn't matter if it is a screenshot or the photo. (That is, even if we could take a photo of the phone or watch with the UI, the UI will remain a copyrighted element). On point 2, it may be possible to get a shot that only uses PDtext logos, but this requires that a user that is willing to give a screenshot only has accounts with banks and institutions with PDtext logos, and this is a bit of a stretch to expect (since we are talking personal finances, and not, say, browsing preferences which can be easily switched around). If one can get one, great, but we can't assure it under NFCC#1. Basically, this is a case where we should definitely encourage a freer image but because we will always be shackled with the UI copyright, we'll never have a perfectly free image. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if both copyrights belong to Apple. The point of NFCC#3 is that we make use of the fewest possible copyrighted elements to serve the encyclopedic need. There is no encyclopedic need served by showing the photograph of the iPhone and iWatch. As for the likelihood of obtaining a screenshot containing only PD-ineligible elements, I don't see why that would be a stretch. Anyone with an iPhone 6 could do it easily. Unfortunately, I don't have one so I can't do it. But a photo like the one in this article - [1] - for example, would serve the encyclopedic need and minimize the copyrighted elements. Ditto for the second photo on this article [2] (not the one showing the group of credit cards, but the one further down that only shows UI elements). It seems perfectly reasonable to expect to get such a photo. --B (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFCC #1, as there are non-copyrighted equivalents that can serve the same encyclopaedic value. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already established that NFCC #1 deletion is not valid in this case, which is why your NFCC1 speedy was removed. There is no free use (non-copyrighted) equivalent that can substitute for an image of the user interface. Even one that consisted of PD logos would still be within a copyrighted user interface design. czar ⨹ 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However the image in it's entirety wouldn't have been copyrighted and it wouldn't display the phone and the watch. You'll will notice that similar rival Google Wallet has nothing but a logo (hmm I should fix that). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which would be a free-r argument (NFCC3 not 1). Photos of the product are okay as long as they're free use. But as Masem and I argue above, the fundamental screenshot on the device will be fair use anyway. If someone wants to make a free-r image that suffices in showing the Watch and iPhone use while reducing the fair use elements, be my guest, but it doesn't make sense to delete the image until such a replacement exists. The current image is completely sufficient by NFCC guidelines as it is. czar ⨹ 01:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how we do things. We used to adopt the view of "yes, we'd like a free image (or a less non-free one), but we're content to use what we have until we get one". The problem with that is that if we settle for a non-free image (or an image that is more infringing than need be), then it is NEVER going to be replaced because nobody has any incentive to do so. There are 100 million things that need to be done on Wikipedia and you have time to do 5 of them. Are you going to spend time replacing an image that we are already accepting? No, of course not. That was the reason that in 2007, we quit accepting "replaceable" images that we were using under a claim of fair use. And even if the whole thing of replacing the credit cards with a photo that shows an aspect of the program other than credit cards or with one that shows only PD credit cards weren't the case, it's been established numerous times that we don't use a 3D photo of a copyrighted object unless the photographer releases the photo under an acceptable license or disclaims his or her copyright to it. It does not matter that Apple (presumably) owns both copyrights. If a sculptor, whose work is on public display in some accessible place took a photo of his work and stuck it on his website, would we use that photo without permission because, after all, the same person owns both copyrights? No, of course not and this case is no different. This is not a photo that Apple put in a press kit that they sent out to the media with tacit permission for the media to use in articles about their products. Rather, it's an image that Apple put on its own website to make its own website look pretty. --B (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So your argument is that Apple's promotional, composite image of Apple Pay is less free than a single (non-composite) promotional screenshot of the app (even if it then means we can only show a use case on a single device)? And therefore that the latter is the only acceptable version of what can go in the infobox? If so, does that mean that there should be no image until someone creates a screenshot with the least number of copyrighted logos? (link to Apple's set of promotional images) czar ⨹ 18:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what Czar just said is that we should keep it until someone makes a free equivalent. Once again I point you to WP:NFCC which quite clearly state Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since one could be created it fails the non-free guidelines. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We actually established that no free use equivalent can be created. Any possible representation of the app will contain copyrighted user interface elements that will require a fair use license. If anything, the image can be "more free" in its fair use (argued as by removing the copyrighted logos or by removing the copyrighted 3D image portion, even though its creator is the same). czar ⨹ 18:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cuz B owes Czar and us a response. ISTM only Apple could create the freer image(s) B is suggesting make NFCC 3 inapplicable.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what there is new to respond to. There are three ways in which this image is deficient: (1) This is an image from Apple's website that they put on their website for the benefit of visitors to their website - it is not a press kit image that Apple distributed with an implied permission to use it in articles about Apple products. (2) A 2-D screenshot is preferable to a 3-D photo. (3) A 2-D screenshot that incorporates only UI elements that Apple owns the copyright to (surely, the application does something other than show you pictures of credit cards?) or PD-ineligible logos is preferable to a screenshot showing logos copyrighted by a third party. --B (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (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:AC Arles.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: Deleted. To pass NFCC#8 for a logo the usual standard here is that it's either the only logo (and the current one) or that there is extensive sourced commentary on the logo itself that the image is required to support. Logos that are not commented on and are just a former logo have not been seen to pass the NFCC criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3: the article already has a different logo. Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update fair use rationale - The image does not fail WP:NFCC#3, since it does not "convey equivalent significant information." The logo is not current; the article clearly states in the caption that the logo is a former logo, implying that it is no longer used. This historical logo differs significantly from the current logo, and there is a great deal of precedent for keeping historical logos in the context of illustrating an organization's history—see Ford Motor Company#Logo evolution, Cartoon Network. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The logo already contains a different logo, so the article doesn't need this extra logo. In the other articles you mentioned, it says that all of the logos are in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken—the other logos are indeed in the public domain. I would, still, favor keeping the image. The two logos in the article are not the same logo—they depict two significantly different ones, and thus I don't see this as depicting "equivalent significant information" as the new logo per WP:NFCC#3. According to the lead section of the article, this particular logo became active on June 4, 2009. The actually article goes into detail about its significance. It satisfies WP:NFCC#8 on those grounds: the article describes the former logo, so omitting an image of it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of it. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, File:AC Arles-Avignon - Logo.png is also a candidate for deletion on the Wikipedia Commons at the moment, since it does not contain appropriate licensing information. However, this can be solved by moving it to the local Wikipedia space under fair use. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated the fair use rationale to describe it as a historical logo. Also, File:AC Arles-Avignon - Logo.png was deleted on the Commons; I have reuploaded it locally to Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (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:SteauaCrests.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (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.