Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 29

May 29

File:Dannii Minogue Coconut Australian CD Single.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 ⚡ 01:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art of less successful cover version in Australia. Furthermore, no proof that omitting this cover art would harm the understanding of the song originally sung by another singer. Fails WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, this version is only briefly touched on in the article. hinnk (talk) 09:20, 31 May 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:Rafah displacement camp airstrike.webp

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. The image is from a video from Reuters, and speculation that it might be a video from bystanders is not substantiated in the discussion. Simply captioning an image fails to be transformative as noted in the discussion. Whpq (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-transformative use of Reuters image, fails WP:NFCC#2 and WP:GETTY point 7. Wcam (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but then I want you to suggest an alternative image to post Personisinsterest (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I would argue that this does not violate these rules. This photo is included in commentary of the article. Many reactions are explicitly based on the images and videos of the attack. This is an image from a video of the attack. And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. It’s exclusive commercial use by Reuters is already invalid. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Non-free historic image, the [u]se of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a subject of commentary, as I said. It is an image from a video of the attack, and videos and images of the attack are mentioned heavily in reactions to the attack and this article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for commercial use, this image has been used widely by media outlets and online. That still doesn't the image compliant with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion. The image has to meet all criteria, not nine or less. In this case, John and Wcam, according to CNN, this image came from Reuters TV, meaning it's a screenshot. This article confirms where the image originated from. Well, it says the image came from some random video, yet somehow, Reuters requires license for commercial use.

If it's a screenshot of a random video later obtained by Reuters, or if it's a screenshot from Reuters TV, then likely the image may have very little or no commercial value. Otherwise, if it's a photo made by news agency, like Reuters itself, then most likely the image has commercial interests as originally intended, and using the image in any non-commercial way would be very risky. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly – This isn't a press photo, unfortunately. It's a screenshot, and a YouTube video by Reuters channel confirms it, starting at around one minute and five seconds (1:05) of the video. Most likely complies with "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion if it's made by a non-Reuters person, like some ordinary bystander recording the horrific event like this. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If this image is from a press agency, it should be speedy deleted under WP:F7. If it is from any other source, it qualifies as fair use. George Ho's argument appears to be valid. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That only applies "where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary", but see below for sourced commentary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, and based on the source shared by George Ho, this is content from Reuters. I don't think this being a still from the video changes anything with respect to WP:NFCC#2 & WP:GETTY. Also worth nothing that this does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 00:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The image does indeed enhance understanding of the article topic. Consider this commentary by CNN. The attack has been subject to many visual analyses and image helps in that understanding.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On this Reuters page under the image in question there's a "Purchase Licensing Rights" link, indicating that Reuters may have acquired the image's distribution rights and its reuse requires permission from Reuters. Thus Wikipedia's unauthorized reuse fails WP:NFCC#2. --Wcam (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image itself (and the video its from) is subject to significant commentary. See this addition of commentary into the article and the CNN source that makes that commentary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is now used twice in the same article: one use in lead, other in a section. Cannot be repeated in the same article. Shall it be in the lead or the section? Cannot be both. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it from the lead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This addidion is just the figure caption whereas the article's main text still lacks sourced commentary, in which case the omission of this image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article topic, thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Wcam (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: can you explain the difference between sourced commentary being in the caption or in the article proper? Is there a policy that dictates that? I can move the sourced commentary to the article proper, but it makes more sense to have it adjacent to the image itself.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:35, 12 June 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.