Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 14

July 14

File:Saint Michaels Cathedral (Kiev) in ruins.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: No action. This has been open for nearly a month and no one has presented new information indicating that this file is copyrighted. No prejudice to re-opening if new information is discovered -FASTILY 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image, presumably from 1936-8, relies on anonymous authorship for public domain status in both Ukraine and the US, but has no source information whatsoever to verify whether authorship is truly anonymous. Felix QW (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In accordance with Article 472 of the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR of 1963: "Copyright for photographic works and works obtained by means similar to photography shall be recognized if the name of the author, place and year of publication of the work are indicated on each copy of the work." And in accordance with Article 493, "Copyright for photographic works and for works obtained by methods similar to photography belongs to the author for five years, and for collections of such works - for ten years from the date of release of these works." This law was in force until 1993. Thus, any photography made in Ukraine before 1988 is in the public domain, both in Ukraine and in the USA. --Yakudza (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, the 1993 Copyright Act stipulated in its Section VI.4, final provisions, that

after the date of entry into force of this Law the terms of protection of copyright stipulated in Article 28 of this Law and parts 1 and 2 of Article 44 of this Law shall apply in all cases when the 50-year period of validity of copyright after the author's death or the period of validity of related rights has not expired prior to the date of entry into force of this Law.

So it was in fact explicitly retroactive, recopyrighting also those works whose shorter previous term had expired. Felix QW (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, "Laws and other normative legal acts have no retroactive force, except in cases where they mitigate or annul the responsibility of a person. No one shall bear responsibility for acts that, at the time they were committed, were not deemed by law to be an offence." --Yakudza (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Yakudza. Ukrainian copyright law is quite clear on this image's status. Take an image search and you will find this image being used on multiple news sources. I can sure find you the source where the image came from, even the encyclopedia, but it is impractical and perhaps impossible to find an author. We are talking about 1930's Stalinist USSR, not a modern day society that keeps plenty of records. The historical relevancy of keeping this image on Wikipedia is immensely great - this is one of the oldest cathedrals in Ukraine that we are talking about, and it was destroyed. This is one of the only images documenting that. § DDima 06:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could also send an email to the editors of the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which I believe to be the immediate source of the image ([1]), where they have it from and whether they have any indication who the author is. If they say they don't know, then these efforts should be documented and we can safely conclude that the image is indeed anonymous.

Otherwise I would not be opposed at all to Wikipedia using it as a non-free image. Felix QW (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the academic department collating and hosting the Encyclopedia and will post again if and when I get a reply. Felix QW (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2023 (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:CWC23-Fixtures-Full.webp

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 ⚡ 01:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid fair use image. We don't need a copyrighted image list of fixtures when we can just write the fixtures and results ourselves, like we have done on 2023 Cricket World Cup#Fixtures. Clear WP:NFCC#1 violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now that the image size has been shrunk to meet fair use policy, the text on the image is completely unreadable. So it adds absolutely zero value. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- unreadable and unhelpful. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:39, 18 July 2023 (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:John Martin Scripps forge Darin Damude signature.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 {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -FASTILY 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no consensus on its copyright status, then let's treat this image as non-free by default, shan't we? As a non-free file, I don't think a forged signature adds much contextual understanding about the perpetrator himself, but I appreciate the uploader's efforts. In other words, not contextually significant after all. George Ho (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet per commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, this seems to be PD-US-only, being a short line of text which is not complex calligraphy -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. As noted by the IP above, a typical signature is not subject to copyright in the United States. ✗plicit 23:29, 21 July 2023 (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.