Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

File:Globus Jagellonicus 2.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 ⚡ 08:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Globus Jagellonicus.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:11, 6 April 2018 (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:Godshow Poster.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: convert to non-free. @Scalumnus, if you indeed authored this image and own its copyright, please send confirmation of your authorship and the stated license. czar 17:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently two posters for a play - Godshow. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. See WP:IOWN. Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free poster, add to the article Godshow. Salavat (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2018 (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:Boeing CST-100 Starliner insignia.svg

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 ⚡ 08:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file used in a purely decorative manner on the CST-100 Starliner article. Numerous other freely licensed images exist in that article, and this logo is not in any meaningful way the primary means of identifying or illustrating the topic. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's the official logo of the program. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia uses logos, insignias, ect. as a primary means of identifying companies, agencies, programs, products, and the alike. There's literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that use logos this way, and I'm confused as to why it is not appropriate in this rather identical circumstance. {{Infobox spacecraft class}} would not have insignia parameters otherwise. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Insignia" exists because there are logos, mission badges, etc, that are either freely licensed or free from copyright entirely, such as NASA-related material. If you come across other articles with non-free insignia where other freely licensed representative images are also present, feel free to let me know and I'll nominate them as well. The original intent of Wikipedia was to be entirely freely licensed; en.wiki's rather exceptional use of non-free media is the unfortunate exception rather than the rule. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rendering of the CST-100 itself (File:CST-100 (crop).jpg), a free image, is being used to identify the CST-100 Starliner. The insignia image is an unambiguous failure of NFCC#1 and #8. What other articles may or may not do is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola _talk 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonfree logos may be used only when no free alternative is possible, typically for abstract entities. Here, a free alternative -- a rendering of the subject vehicle -- is certainly possible, and even if the rendering were nonfree, a depiction of the actual vehicle is preferred to an abstract one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Crazy what I'm seeing here. This is like saying chocolate-chip cookies are a good seafood alternative to fish. Program insignia ≠ concept artwork. I thought that didn't need to be elaborated... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:09, 11 April 2018 (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:ElaineHerzbergCrashSite2018mar21.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 as F7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC point 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent [...] could be created". Anybody with a camera can go stand on the sidewalk, take the same photo, and upload it. Using the copyrighted photo from Google Street Maps is just laziness. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and really should have originally been tagged WP:F7 as it so obviously replaceable. -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2018 (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:Arsinamispeaker.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. See also ticket:2018020810002062 czar 18:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duck copyvio. Appeared on official Instagram site here; Uploader is a confirmed sock of Easyheartforyou, all of whose uploads have been of this person and deleted on Commons as copyvios; Uploader also sourced File:Arsinamistill.png‎ (unambigious copyvio) to same Flickr stream as this image and purported to be author. Appears to be Flickrwashing (note also other images in Flickr stream are clearly not personal works) Эlcobbola _talk 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Sasha Szagartz via commonswikimedia support email and I sent a signed photo release regards to me being the full rights owner to Arsinamistill.png Also, you mention regards to File:Arsinamispeaker.png, and show a link to my personal instagram account which is taken by my own cell phone, which clearly is taken my cellphone making me the right owner. The flickr page also belongs to me. If there are any other concerns please contact me directly and please don't make any assumptions. Thank you for the help. --Beverlywood1111 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"clearly is taken my cellphone making me the right owner" No. Copyright is an intellectual (intangible) property that belongs to the author (photographer), not the owner of the physical device. As a collaterally, your premise would imply literary copyrights (e.g., books) belong to the printing press owners rather than the authors--an absurdity. The foregoing quoted comment is an implicit acknowledgement that you are indeed not the author as you falsely purport ("I took this photo"). Эlcobbola _talk 18:45, 20 April 2018 (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:LilXanBetrayed;jpg.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 18:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally uploaded this file on intention to upload cover art for another song, not realizing it was a duplicate of another song's cover art. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 20:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bapreme, you can just tag files like this with {{db-f1|name of the other copy}}, or, since you uploaded the file itself, with {{db-g7}} to get the file deleted immediately. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2018 (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.