Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

File:DSEI.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the internet without permission; copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:30, 14 July 2021 (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:AHADS attippatti.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AHADS attippatti.gif Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:45, 14 July 2021 (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:ItalyEC2020win.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 ⚡ 00:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent newsworthy image, no attempt to wait for free images to come out. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No guarantee there will ever be a free image of this, and the fair-use rational is clear about why this image is necessary—to illustrate the culmination of the win. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried searching for one? Adding a non-free image just 3 days after the event is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think? If no free image surfaces for months afterwards, then maybe we can reconsider. The fact that there is already a non-free image in the article discourages people from searching for or uploading their own free images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. flickr. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article in question has an ample number of freely licensed images, so use of a nonfree image is unnecessary and replaceable, and indeed already replaced (fails NFCC #1) and decorative (fails NFCC #8, I don't think an image is necessary to convey that the winners were happy to win.) NFCC #1 is about whether the subject of an article has free images available for it, not about particular aspects of that subject, so whether or not a free image of this particular thing ever becomes available is not relevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition tot he other reasons for deletion already presented, it also fails WP:NFCC#2. See this news article which credits this as a press pool photo via Associated Press. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2021 (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:Steel Frame Whelping Box with Washable Liner.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steel Frame Whelping Box with Washable Liner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Shows name brand of product in an attempt of using free advertising i.e. EZ Whelp Farminfan (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2021 (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:Jo Grimond.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 ⚡ 06:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of thing that in the past would've been discussed at WP:PUF, but now is discussed here instead. This file was originally uploaded by Graemp as non-free content, but was converted by Graemp to {{PD-Pre1978}} a few years later. However, I don't this file meets the conditions of "PD-1978" because that license only seems to apply to works originating in the US (which is not the case with respect to this file) and also possibly to works published in the US without a copyright notice within 30 days after their original publication overseas. The latter might be a possibility here, but even if the picture did appear is some US paper, it would probably need to be established that not only the image but also the paper itself was without a copyright notice. I think that individual copyright notices were, at the time, only required for advertisements appearing in print publications, and not required for individual photos appears in news stories; if that's the case, the photo might still be protected if the paper it appeared is still under copyright. Anyway, I asked about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/June#File:Jo Grimond.jpg and the response I got from Seraphimblade seem to be leaning towards "this is not PD-1978". I also asked Graemps about this at User talk:Graemp#Discussion at WP:MCQ § File:Jo Grimond.jpg, but never got a response. In all fairness to Graemp, they haven't edited since the middle of June (i.e. before my query) and, therefore, simply might not be aware of the matter. Since the MCQ thread about this has already been archived, I'm bring it up for further discussion here.

If the consensus turns out to be that this photo is PD of some kind, then perhaps all that is needed is for the licensing to be tweaked. On the other hand, if the consensus is that the claim of PD is questionable at best, then I don't think it should be kept as licensed and it should be relicensed as non-free. In that case though, the file's non-free use would only seem acceptable in Jo Grimond and that is really the only article for which a valid WP:FUR could possibly be written; this means that the file would need to be removed from the other six pages where it's currently being used. However, even in the case of "Jo Grimond", the file's use is problematic per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) because a freely licensed image does already exist as File:President John F. Kennedy with Leader of the Liberal Party of Great Britain, Jo Grimond.jpg and is currently being used in the article. So, unless Graemp responds and clarifies things, I'm not seeing any evidence which justifies this as "PD-1978" and this file would need to be deleted since it's primary claim for non-free use also seems invalid. Finally, it's also not clear as to whether something similar was done with respect to other files. So, this too might be something that needs to be checked into if the claim of PD turns out to be invalid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Marchjuly stated, I took a look for any indication that this was published concurrently in the US in a publication without a copyright notice, but I came up completely empty as to any US publication at all. Therefore, PD-1978 does not apply here as that does not apply to images originally published only outside the US. Since there is no indication that this image is public domain and good reason to believe it is still under copyright, we must treat it as though it is still copyrighted and nonfree. The image of Grimond with Kennedy could be cropped to provide a freely licensed image of Grimond, so there would be no justification for retaining a nonfree one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 14 July 2021 (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.