Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 21

August 21

File:SpySheriffPopUp.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't need to use non-free images to illustrate general concepts. I suggest removal from scareware. There are some examples from [1] that are below the threshold of originality. Furthermore, the SpySheriff article already has a different non-free image, so there is no need to keep this one on that article either. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bodwin-family.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is redundant and unfeatured in any article. Please notify if you are working on an article using this file. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Swindon town fc badge 1969.PNG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing each of these images in-depth -Fastily 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the claim that says that the logos are "discussed in articles as listed on this page", these former crests are not subject to sourced critical commentary in History of Swindon Town F.C., where they are used. In order to satisfy the contextual significance criterion, an additional non-free item must either "itself [be] the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article", as "only a single item of non-free content meets" WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFC#cite_note-4, "The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo." None of these requirements occur in the aforementioned article. ✗plicit 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are discussed in Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest as stated on the image pages. If you feel they shouldn't be in the History article, feel free to remove them from it. Nanonic (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fail WP:NFCC#8 as do not significantly enhance the articles (even with the paragraphs of partially sourced text about club logo history on Swindon_Town_F.C.#Crest), and WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non free items in an article (current logo suffices on Swindon_Town_F.C., and no logo is fine on History of Swindon Town F.C.). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that historical logos serve no purpose, don't enhance the article, and/or fail NFCC. Websites exist dealing with historical football kits and logos - see e.g. this - as well as being dealt with by the clubs and historians themselves. The issue here is not with the logos, but with how they are used in articles. That should be remedied, rather than valid images deleted. GiantSnowman 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are just including old logos with zero commentary about them, those flay out fail NFCC#8. Our non free policy is stricter than fair use that other websites go by as to minimize the decorative use of nonfree — Masem (t) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As I said - improve the articles. That is not a valid reason to delete. Giant Snowman 18:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Deadlock-screenshot.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn -Fastily 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#4. The screenshot was taken from leaked closed-beta copy of yet-unannounced video game, and thus is not yet published by the copyright holder, Valve, to the public, nor publicly-released screenshot taken by Valve themselves are available. In a screenshot in the linked source, Valve made it clear not to leak it to the public. Therefore it cannot be considered as fair use. Stylez995 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The screenshot was published by The Verge, which is considered a reliable source of information. Although Valve did not expressly permit the publication of the screenshot, they did become aware of its publication after the fact, as evidenced by their banning of the article's author from playing the game [2]. If they wanted it gone, they could have filed a copyright claim to get it taken down, but they did not do so, and I think this can be taken as indication that they do not intend to prevent its spread. They have also so far not sought to exercise any legal force or mandate any enforceable agreements to prevent people from leaking the game, and there is no indication that they will do so, in spite of the extremely public nature of the leaks.
Considering the unusual circumstances at play here, I believe that informing readers about what is publicly known about the game in reliable sources takes precedence over pleasing Valve, and that WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:IAR apply in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Screenshot from video games and other medias do not have to be those released by the copyright owner, since the use of these fall under fair use principles of US law, as long as all other factors of non free are met. As for an unreleased to the public product, User-made screenshot are of questionable dubiousness, but those taken from reliable sources used to illustrate their own articles on the topic are 100% fair game for use, since we are using the source reliability to say the screenshot is a fair representation of the game. Masem (t) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valve's secrecy agreement was a "gentleman's agreement" and AFAIK not even legally binding, so there's no case here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Valve just lifted the NDA. I think the image isn't worth deleting now. NessBLX (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://dotesports.com/deadlock/news/valve-officially-unveils-deadlock-a-game-weve-totally-heard-nothing-about NessBLX (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image is legally no different from any video game screenshot on WP. The Verge's ethics of including a screenshot and reporting on Valve's confidential game is outside a deletion discussion. I think whether including the screenshot on the Deadlock article has encyclopedic use should to be discussed on the talk page. IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace: Legally, this image may be used. Though, I propose a clearer, editor-captured image be used to represent the gameplay. BOTTO_(T•C) 14:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily object to this option, but my opinion would depend on the particular replacement being proposed. That's probably a conversation outside the scope of this discussion, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as moot, since Valve has since announced the game, and lifted the embargo, which now fulfills NFCC#4. --Stylez995 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Images of Valencia City.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of the component images of this collage/montage not specified. Specifying the sources of the component images is important to ensure that this file as a derivative work of the component images does not contain unfree images not under acceptable CC licensing; see also c:COM:Collages. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Metro-epektaseis.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. There seems to be general consensus that {{PD-GreekGov}} is only applicable to text and does not apply. There is also no agreement below that {{PD-map}} applies and that the map falls below US TOO. Defaulting to assuming that this is non-free. No prejudice to restoration if someone can a) produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD OR b) create a valid fair use claim for the file. -Fastily 07:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain whether the uploader and the copyright holder are the same person as claimed. Claim of the map being copyrighted or public domain uncertain yet. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Greek PD copyright tag is correct then who the uploader is would seem to be irrelevant. The question is thus whether the copyright tag is correct. I can't find the original source, but the same image has been used by what seems like every Greek newspaper and website reporting about the Thessaloniki Metro so it's certainly not the original work of the source website. None of the articles I looked at gave credit, so unless that's common in Greek media the claim of the PD seems very likely. I can't find the map on the website of the organisation our article says is responsible for the Metro, so they don't seem to be the source, but obviously that doesn't tell us who is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – Default to delete if no one else opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose deletion then? Normally, nominated files without at least one input still have been deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm still uncertain whether the map belongs to the officials. I'm just now defaulting to treating the file as unfree at this time and can assume that the map fails NFCC technically. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (Unstruck, 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Having done some more searching I've found two sources that credit the image to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Greece) (Υπουργείο Υποδομών και Μεταφορών). One of those sources is definitely unreliable (a forum), but the other Gazzetta appears to be reliable (but it's never been discussed at RSN). While it is certainly plausible for that agency to be producing maps of transport infrastructure projects in Greece I've not been able to immediately find it on their website (yme.gr), but I did find [3] which includes images very clearly from the same presentation shown in the Gazzetta article (both articles were published on 20 May, which is also the earliest date Google has for any copy of the image). On the balance of probabilities at least I am satisfied that the Ministry is the source for the image. I haven't verified whether the PD license applies to works of government departments, but given the widespread usage by Greek media it seems very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Changing my stance to more likely PD as Greek government work per above evidence. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Nom's comment, 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
@Thryduulf and George Ho: Which license exactly? {{PD-GreekGov}} only applies to texts. ✗plicit 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I misread the tag. Reading c:COM:NOP Greece and the rest of the page, I couldn't find a suitable Commons tag that would label the map as free. Rather I now go for unfree by default again. Uncertain whether it meets NFCC, but the infobox has hidden/collapsed the map, which may affect the map's compliance with NFCC. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: To me it looks like it does apply here. "[T]here is no copyright protection for official texts [...] nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." Emphasis mine. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The maps are more than just "simple facts and data". Maps require high intuition and skill, especially to perfect proximity and whatevs. As I see, the map looks very complex expressively, even if it's not artwork or... How do you call it? George Ho (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm not sure. Near as I can tell the copyright holder is the government, but unless someone who can read Greek comes along, dropping the relevant law here is all I've got: Η προστασία του παρόντος νόμου δεν εκτείνεται σε επίσημα κείμενα με τα οποία εκφράζεται η άσκηση πολιτειακής αρμοδιότητας και ιδίως σε νομοθετικά, διοικητικά ή δικαστικά κείμενα, καθώς και στις εκφράσεις της λαϊκής παράδοσης, στις ειδήσεις και στα απλά γεγονότα ή στοιχεία. Unless a Greek speaker comes along to say otherwise I'm going to have to agree with you. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it depends whether what Google is translating as "texts" is being used to mean "works" or specifically "textual works", both seem equally plausible - especially as Google offers an alternative translation as "official documents". Commons:Category:PD Greece contains lots of images, including maps, but that's not a guarantee the tag is being used correctly. Looking through the Commons deletion requests that link to the tag, all there were deleted were for reasons that don't help us here (e.g. not actually (or not certainly) works of the Greek government). Indeed the only deletion request there that I've found that appears relevant is Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellenic Coast Guard flag Rethymno.jpg, which was kept, but a photograph of a flag and a map are different enough that the precedent might or might not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel a bit silly: it's a map which means {{PD-map}} is the right license. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Dunno whether the court decision in a US case applies to non-US maps also. (By the way, an appellate court decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court. *ugh*) Commons insists that a work be free in both the source country and the US. Haven't seen yet a Greek court case about maps. George Ho (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is free in the US but not the source country (I don't know if that applies here) then we can keep it locally as {{PD-USonly}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would apply here except I finally found as good of an answer as we're likely to get. That it's governmental is probably irrelevant as it's a map and those rarely meet the Threshold of Originality, which means these are our answer: ToO in Greece and ToO of maps. So keep is my final answer. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the assertion that this map qualifies for PD-map, even by the threshold of originality standards of the United States. This one in particular includes complex elements like roads, highways, and other transport routes. It doesn't remotely resemble the map like File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif. ✗plicit 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct that this map and the appraisers one are quite different, take a look at the casebook. The only ineligible map is one of a fictional world and it's that world that is the subject of the copyright, not the map itself - because real world data cannot be copyrighted. This deletion request and discussion regarding charts and data may be of interest. Sure, this map has roads/highways/etc, but those things exist, their existence isn't in question and thus cannot be copyrighted, the question is whether adding the metro routes pushes it over the ToO in the US or Greece, and I don't think it does. Greece's ToO is:

[T]he work involves skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work.

The only creative choice here was what colors to use, and different colors wouldn't actually change the work (map). The background with the roads/etc is just a generic street map, and the routes are factual data, so, to quote the casebook:

This map represents data. All choices made in the creation of the map were based upon utilitarian and informational considerations.
~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the casebook, the list consists of just US court cases. I appreciate your interpretation of the Greek law, but I still think the law itself is too vague on maps. Well, the exact same work passage may be interpreted as inapplicable to maps, despite their close resemblances to each other. Has any court case from Greece itself addressed copyright of maps yet? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{PD-map}} or locally as {{PD-USonly}} — it's a map, and per Commons (and the above discussion) "Data-driven maps in particular are in the public domain. The map represents data. All choices made in the creation of the map being based upon utilitarian and informational considerations."

~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.