Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12

File:Noggin Del Fuego II.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noggin Del Fuego II.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Commons discussion. Green Giant (talk) 18:36, 18 January 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:WAG 12 locomotive.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. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Copy-right violation. The image has the copyright of the Indian Railways which does not release the image under any license. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'clear', but delete anyway. I think the copyright here originally belongs to Anant Singh (given the history of this image), but it's not licensed for WP use. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was uploaded here by the user after it was deleted from commons as a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne I was involved in both these deletions. The user has persistently tried to upload these photos even after being informed that they are Copy-right violations. On the contrary they left a note on my talk page User_talk:Adamgerber80#Love_me_so_much? that they can still upload anything and their latest upload is also a copy. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and c:File:IMG wag 12 15156745020731174-1.jpg. Green Giant (talk) 18:43, 18 January 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:Locomotive WAG 12.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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet criteria 1 of the NFCC since there exists a similar variant of the locomotive on Wikimedia commons at [1] which is in use in the article. In my opinion, this image does not depict anything significantly different since it is a small model and also adds very little additional understanding for a reader compared to the other freely available image. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose deletion on the claimed grounds because "there's an image of a different thing that looks a bit like it" just isn't a good enough reason to fail NFCC #1 ! OTOH, these images were summarily deleted at Commons under "licensing", so maybe someone knows something I don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons versions have been deleted because although a photograph of this model might be acceptable, what we have here is a scree grab from a copyrighted video - and so it ought to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has tried to upload various variants of this and similar to images on commons that have been deleted as copyright violations. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 12 January 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:Samsung Bixby Logo.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: no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is unique enough for copyright in the United States, but I'm not sure. If not, then the {{Information}} and {{PD-logo}} tags should be used instead of the ones currently on the file. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Hello. I have search it up and I could find evidence of Samsung's trademark application with the European Trade Mark and Design Network for Bixby’s logo. Thanks! Here attached is the URL I have found. https://www.neowin.net/news/logo-for-samsungs-bixby-ai-assistant-shows-up-in-trademark-filing Cheers - Wefk423 (talk) 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Wefk423: Thanks for your prompt response in the matter. I'm going to assume that you don't know of what I'm about to say as I had to learn this as well: Copyrights and trademarks are not the same thing. What I'm questioning is whether or not the image itself is artistically unique enough to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. My primary question on this is whether or not the shapes in the logo are original and unique enough to make the image eligible for copyright. (If I recall, a good place to find more information about copyrighted eligibility for images can be found at Commons:Threshold of originality.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Steel1943: Thanks for the info, I did mixed up the two phrases. Do hope other users could identify this case. Thanks for your response and contribution. Cheers - Wefk423 (talk) 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not willing to making a call on this one. More input would be nice, otherwise needs to be closed as "no consensus." Better to be "safe than sorry."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:37, 12 January 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.