Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 22

April 22

File:Nether Fortress.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 ⚡ 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:NFCC, with no fair use rationale given on the file page itself at all and its usage being completely decorative. There is nothing in the Minecraft article that requires a visual depiction of a Nether Fortress, and the section in the article is mainly sourced to game guide content. NFCC generally requires something be a major talking point in the article per criteria 8 - which Nether Fortresses, or even the Nether in general, are not. This image is purely decorative. Also, the image is dark enough to the point where it could not improve a readers understanding of the topic even if it did meet NFCC. λ NegativeMP1 00:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2025 (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:Archetype entertainment logo.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: Convert to PD. Whpq (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the color shading unique enough for this image to be eligible for copyright in the United States? Otherwise, doesn't look as though this is eligible for copyright. Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think we should secondguess the threshold of originally that far. If the entire logo had the single gradient, I could sse that, maybe, but not the individual gradients on each triangle, and rather we play it safe than not. Masem (t) 01:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to guess. The courts have already ruled on it. Buffs (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/mark as PD simple Shading alone is generally not enough to meet copyright requirements. Shading, while a technique used in visual art, is a common practice and doesn't inherently have enough originality or creativity to be considered a protectable expression on its own. For a work to be copyrightable, it needs to demonstrate a minimal level of originality and creativity, meaning it's the independent creation of the author and has a "spark" of creativity. Shading, while used to create depth and dimension, is a fundamental technique that is widely used and doesn't inherently represent originality or creativity in and of itself. Shading is a tool used within a creative work. Shading alone cannot be the threshold of originality. To quote the 4th circuit in Darden v Peters: "...color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity; indeed, Darden's contributions to the preexisting maps resemble the list of examples of uncopyrightable works set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)." If a triangle isn't copyrightable, just adding shading to it or repeating it isn't enough to attain copyright. Can it have trademark protections? Absolutely! In fact, it most certainly should. But its function is utilitarian in nature, not creative. It can no more attain a copyright than a headlight for a car can. Buffs (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (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:Christchurch coat of arms.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: relisted on 2025 May 1. ✗plicit 14:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christchurch coat of arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Emilie Kahn headshot from the cover of her 2023 album "Maybe".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 ⚡ 01:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed as to whether "No free alternatives exist; the subject appears to be resistant to good free photography, or even good non-free promotional photography that shows her eyes" for the "Not replaceable with free media" rationale is sufficient to meet the wording and current interpretation of the fair use policy's "No Free equivalent" section. ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.").

I think it is sufficient. — Jeff G. ツ 15:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I think it's only fair to make clear that you're the uploader and writer of the rationale being discussed. And while I'm not disputing your right to that opinion- and nor do I have any doubt that it's what you believe in good faith- I'm still not sufficiently convinced. Ubcule (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's already noted above. No need to repeat it here. Those assessing the image are capable of taking comments by uploaders and nonuploaders with appropriate and equal weight and make an assessment based on the merits of each argument posed. The uploader's opinion on the subject expressed here is just as appropriate to express as yours or mine. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's exactly the point I intentionally acknowledged by saying "I'm not disputing your right to that opinion"(!) I mentioned that Jeff was the uploader solely because the impression given otherwise might have been that they were an additional voice in favour. Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um...they are an additional voice in "favor" (we ungrateful colonials fought a war not to use that extra, unnecessary "u"...except with "glamour"). Buffs (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear- again- that I'm not trying to deprive the uploader of their equal right to express an opinion, let me clarify that I meant their comment here being mistaken for a that of a third-party opinion/voice in addition to that of the original uploader (i.e. being counted twice, since we'd assume the uploader was already in favour). Ubcule (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assumption that isn't correct. Many times when faced with details, uploaders will agree with the presented logic. I know many of my uploads have been deleted and I was in favor of the deletion of most of them. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is alive and not in a place where a photograph could not be obtained (i.e. Prison). Buffs (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a question at Third Opinion about the use of this image. I advised the editors that the volunteers at Files for Discussion (that is, here) would have more experience in dealing with questions about the propriety of images. I do not have an opinion at this time because I know that the volunteers here are more familiar than I am with questions about images. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a standard case of UUI #1, since the article makes it sound like she still promotes her work by performing publicly. What does it mean "to be resistant to good free photography", is it that there currently aren't any freely licensed images? hinnk (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2025 (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.