Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

March 28

File:Minecraft city hall.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, mostly per the excellent analysis presented by Alexis Jazz. A free version could be created without infringing upon Mojang/Microsoft copyrights. -FASTILY 00:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. The problem with this image is that it's not just encumbered by Minecraft's copyright, but the copyright of the person who created this building. If one wanted to use an image of the building in the article to comment on how people create buildings in Minecraft, this image could be replaced by a player-created building that was freely licensed. That would be a "freer" piece of media so to speak. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no non-free alternative, as any Minecraft screenshot will be copyrighted by Mojang. The idea of an image being "freer" is not stated in Wikipedia's policies and seems to be purely a personal opinion on your part. An image is either free or it isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It's supposed to be minimal. This isn't minimal. Minimal usage would only be encumbering on Mojang's copyright, and not some other guy's. Plus, now that I think about it, File:Tinkers Construct smeltery.png is a free screenshot of Minecraft. We could get a freely licensed texture pack and use that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal usage (a) or (b) do not discuss multiple copyrights, only minimal images in the article itself and the use of low-resolution images. I still do not see where this idea stems from in Wikipedia policy.

Minecraft is one of the few games where a free content pack could get across sufficient information, I suppose. However, I don't agree that "a free alternative can reasonably be found". It must be "unreasonably" made from scratch for Wikipedia. Until an equivalent image is made, I don't think this should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I'd say the spirit of the rule is that we don't want to infringe on copyright beyond what's necessary. That's why we have to crop images to what's in focus, reduce resolution, and jump through other hoops. I'd say part of that is the idea that we can make our own screenshots of our own creations, rather than using some other guy's screenshots of someone else's creations. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, actually, WP:FREER. Chess, "Minimal usage would only be encumbering on Mojang's copyright" erm funny story. In this particular case, the resolution of File:Minecraft city hall.png and distance from the structure means Minecraft material textures can't be made out. (whether those are copyrightable is another debate, but they can't be made out here, so irrelevant) The lighting/reflection is stuff the engine does, the result of math essentially. Not copyrightable. The ocean is just one color and the sky is a gradient, still no copyright for Mojang. This leaves a few trees, maybe a little island in the background (dunno if that was procedurally generated or made by MCFRArchitect) and the clouds. While Minecraft is procedurally generated, these structures are generated within some strict rules. However, those parts are arguably de minimis in this picture. (and it can be blasted away with some cropping/retouching anyway) Does it all matter? In this case, not really. Any Wikipedian can make some architecture in Minecraft. The lack of any quickbuild/clone tool makes it 100% pure hell (I never got any of the mods to work) and creating something that looks nice isn't for everyone. But it's definitely doable. So a free(r) alternative is possible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]