Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17

File:Larry Taunton speaks in Birmingham, AL in 2010.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr has never allowed CC-By-SA 3.0 as a license. Now, this account and file is deleted on Flickr. If moved to Commons, this would be deleted on the spot for failing a file review. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:05, 17 June 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:Puerta Calle Clara Lair.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file is -nc-nd on Flickr. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:06, 17 June 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:Erin in White Blouse.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the user upload log, the Flickr version is COM:license laundering. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:20, 17 June 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:WA-10 CeisGortonDraftProposal.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a work of the American federal government, it's the work of the Washington state government [1]. Works by the Washington state government are not released under the public domain or any other suitable free license. ℯ xplicit 07:58, 17 June 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.

List of mayors of Ventura, California

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. Well, it seems like none of the files either a) has any clear cut indication of PD-ness or b) has any use that would not run afoul of WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFLISTS. If people find convincing arguments for PD-ness on any file - say through publication dates - or if they want one for a standalone article where WP:NFCC#8, they can ask at my talkpage, WP:DELREV or elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free images being used in List of mayors of Ventura, California. Most of the individuals depicted in these image appear to be deceased, so it might be possible to use their respective images for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about them (if such articles exist); however, the use of non-fre images for individual entries in list articles is typically not considered acceptable per WP:NFLISTS and I don't see the way these particular images are being used to be an exception to long-established consensus.

There is, however, the possiblity that some of these images are old enough to be no longer eligible for copyright protection which means they could be converted to {{{PD-US}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} or some other form of public domain. It might also even be possible that some of these images are considered to be "official photographs" covered under {{PD-CAGov}}. If any of these can be converted to PD, then they would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and can be evenutally moved to Commons. More information is needed about these photos (like the information mentioned in WP:NFCC#10a) for their copyright status to be properly assessed to determoine how they should be licensed. If it turns out that all or some of these need to be treated as non-free content, then I don't think such files can be kept per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

There is another issue as well which needs to be addressed. All of these images appear to be photos of photos taken by the uploader using their iPhone. If this is the case, then there are actually two copyrights in play here: the copyright of the underlying work (i.e., the photo being photgraphed) and the copyright of the photo taken by the uploader. Since the photos taken by the uploader all seem to be simple mechanical reproductions of 2D-photos, they are likely not eligible for copyright protection; this means that any claim by the uploader of copyright ownership over them would not be allowed per WP:NFCC#1 regardless of the copyright status of the underlying work because basically someone else could take essentially the same photo and release it under a free license accepted by Wikipedia, It's not clear whether the uploader is claiming copyright ownership over their iPhone photos so no copyright license is provided for the photos themselves.

Suggest keep for any of the files for which the underlying work can be confirmed to be within the public domain, but only on the condition that the uploader agrees to release their iPhone photos under a free license accepted by Wikipedia; otherwise, all of the files will need to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 regardless. Suggest delete for any file which needs to be licensed as non-free per WP:NFLISTS, unless there exists a stand-alone article about the individual in question where the photo can be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for all non-free files) As it stands, in theory this page could end up with 56 non-free images - that is not minimal usage on an article. Also such a page is not more than a gallery, which is not allowed for non-free images. Should anyone write a stand alone article for a person then that could have one image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the non-free: they are not allowed in lists per WP:NFLISTS but any that can be proven to be freely licenced should be kept. The onus for providing the copyright status is up to the uploading editor who should investigate them for this use. ww2censor (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the non-free: NFLISTS is pretty cut and dry on this issue. A non-free image used just to decorate a line in a table is an unacceptable fair use claim. --Majora (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. There's a lot of gray area here. For the mayors before 1898; if the images were never published, then they may be PD per the Cornell copyright chart. If they were published after 1923, and copyright was renewed, then they may be subject to copyright. It's a gray area, and lacking further information we have no way of knowing, unless we walk into the Gallery of mayors, Ventura City Hall, 2nd floor. Of note also is that these works may have been created by the City of Ventura, and not by people who allowed their works to be used by the city. This is an important distinction. If they were created by the municipal government, then the images should be moved to Commons and Commons:Template:PD-CAGov applies. We just don't know. We can assume, but there's still a (albeit small) possibility at least some and maybe all of these images are subject to copyright. @Cbl62: your input here is really needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My photographs are the easy part. I am happy to license my photographs as public domain. As for the original photos, they are all on display in Ventura City Hall. The images have plates identifying the person and the years in office. The display, however, does not identify the photographers. Nor is information provided as to publication history. I thought since the city displayed these as official mayoral portraits, their use on the mayor list would be appropriate (and quite helpful in illustrating the list). If I was wrong about that, then I must, of course, abide by the decision made here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am wondering if it may be more appropriate to discuss each image separately, as (per Hammersoft) their copyright status may vary from image to image.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 June 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:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.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: relisted on 2018 June 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment (The Attack-1917) during Marasesti Battle ,personal album of Aristide Razu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Logo of Toms College of Engineering for Startups.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

College logo is unlikely to be under a free license. OTRS Would be required. Conversion to fair use cannot be done as the only usage is in sandbox and drafts. Whpq (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing with no use in the main space. Likely to be a non-free logo. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 18 June 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:Toms College of Engineering for Startups academic block.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 16#File:Toms College of Engineering for Startups academic block shadow.jpg. This is the same image after some additional photoshopping. Licensing ownership still needs to be cleared up via WP:OTRS. Whpq (talk) 14:36, 17 June 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:Otto Dix Sy von Harden.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 on only two articles. Consensus is that the images are OK at Sylvia von Harden and Otto Dix, but not elsewhere. WP:NFCC#10 compliance needs to be secured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's fine to keep it in Otto Dix since it's the only example of a post-WWI artwork in the article. It looks fine in Sylvia von Harden too: it's an article about a deceased person and there are no known free images (I presume) and besides there's a lot of discussion about this painting in the article. Remove from all of the other articles.

Furthermore, WP:NFCC#10c states that The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. The person who posted the FURs to the file information page has simply duplicated the text in all sections (except that point 5 only appears in the last two sections) without adjusting the FURs for each usage. Therefore, all use of the file currently violates WP:NFCC#10c as the FURs are not relevant to each use. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep for the Dix and von Harden articles provided the respective non-free uses can be better clarified, but remove for all of the other articles.

While I can understand the argument for wanting to use the file in the article about the painter, I think there should be more about it than just a caption and brief mention of the painting; otherwise, any non-free image of Dix's work could basically serve the same purpose. I'm also not sure that two non-free examples of his work are needed per WP:NFCC#3a, so it should be clarified why File:'Stormtroops Advancing Under Gas', etching and aquatint by Otto Dix, 1924.jpg and this file are both needed.

In addtion, I'm not so sure about the file's use in the main infobox of the article about von Harden. She has been dead quite a long time, so it seems that a non-free image of her for primary identification purposes should be OK per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as WP:NFCC#1 is not an issue. (There do appear to be other images of von Harden available online, though I am not sure about their copyright status.) However, I think the main infobox image should be something that helps identify here as looked in real life, not as how Picasso "saw" her. There still might be enough context to justify the file's use outside of the main infobox per WP:NFCC#8, but the ratioanle should be revised to better clarify that.

Lastily, I don't think the uses in the other more general genre/list articles comply with WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. I understand these articles are about art and images are important to them; I just don't feel that this non-free image is essential to them and the use of the file is more decorative than contextual as those terms are used in WP:NFCC. It seems that if the painting needs to be mentioned in the article than a link to the stand-alone article is more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and should be preferred to any overly simplistic or detailed content simply added to these articles just to try and justify the file's non-free use within them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly for the von Harden article. Do a Google book search for Sylvia von Harden and notice how, when she is mentioned, it is nearly always in connection with the Dix portrait. In the English-speaking world at least, it's probably what she's best known for. I think it should be kept in the Otto Dix article as well—an example of his work there is fair use. There's no free substitute, and the jpeg is low-res. Ewulp (talk) 01:23, 19 June 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:Max Beckmann's 'Self-portrait with Horn', 1938-1940.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 only on Max Beckmann. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Remove from all articles except Beckmann. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in the Beckmann article; it's a low-res image; there is no free-use substitute. Ewulp (talk) 01:56, 19 June 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:Master-bill.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: relisted on 2018 June 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Master-bill.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Christinasworld.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 only on Christina's World. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Remove from all articles except the article about the work — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from 20th-century Western painting, Andrew Wyeth, History of painting and Western painting. Keep in Christina's World. Salavat (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is Wyeth's masterpiece, and his work needs to be appreciated visually...Modernist (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can be done in the article about the work. In all other articles omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article topic. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 19 June 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:Office in a small city hopper 1953.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: relisted on 2018 June 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Office in a small city hopper 1953.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Freud, girl-white-dog.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: relisted on 2018 June 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freud, girl-white-dog.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:'Natura Morta', oil on canvas painting by Giorgio Morandi, 1956, private collection.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: relisted on 2018 June 25. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Natura Morta', oil on canvas painting by Giorgio Morandi, 1956, private collection.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.