Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 August 21

August 21

File:Hitler teapot.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; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image of a kettle is a reupload of a previously deleted file, originally deleted due to "replaceable fair use." The kettle is a common household item that is readily available for sale online (such as Ebay), and therefore, it is entirely possible to create or find a freely licensed photograph of it. The use of this non-free image is not justified as a free alternative can be created (WP:NFCC#1). Wcam (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the ebay listings you linked are for a different teapot. The teapot that is actually the subject of the article, the Michael Graves Design Bells and Whistles Stainless Steel Tea Kettle, is selling for around $200 USD on ebay. I don't think it's really fair to expect a Wikipedia user to drop that kind of money for a photograph. It might theoretically be possible that a Wikipedian with a lot of disposable money could do it, but I don't think it's likely. And I guess this gets into whether we want to delete the photo because it's theoretically possible to replace it but unlikely to happen. I'm not gonna vote either way, I'm just putting that out there. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a free image is not reasonably obtainable due to the item's cost is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy on replaceable fair use.

A direct comparison can be made to Wikipedia's policy on non-free images of living persons. A non-free image of a living person is strictly prohibited because it is reasonably expected that a free photograph of that person can be taken. This policy holds true regardless of the subject's fame or accessibility. We don't make exceptions for a celebrity who might be difficult or expensive to meet; the policy stands because the potential for a free image exists.

The same principle applies here, and in fact, this kettle is arguably more "available" than many living people. Even if it may no longer be in production, it is a mass-produced product with numerous units in use and still being sold on the secondary market. The cost of a single unit is irrelevant to the policy. The policy is not based on the financial burden on an individual contributor, but on the objective possibility of creating a free replacement. With millions of Wikipedia editors and readers worldwide, it is entirely reasonable to assume that someone either owns this kettle or can access one for the purpose of taking a freely licensed photograph.

Therefore, the argument that it is "unlikely to happen" due to cost is not a valid reason to retain a non-free image. The policy is not contingent on whether a specific editor is willing or able to purchase the item. It is based on the objective fact that a free alternative can reasonably be created. The non-free image must be deleted. Wcam (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, theoretically anything is possible to be released under a free license. If an editor had billions of dollars they could buy Disney and release all of their film posters into the public domain, eliminating the need for fair use files on pages like Frozen (2013 film). It's just not a reasonable or realistic expectation because it's not something most people can afford. My point is that just because something is possible to those with financial means doesn't mean it's a realistic expectation. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue here isn't the acquisition of rights to a pre-existing non-free image, but rather the creation of a new, free work. Wikipedia's policy is based on the principle of replaceability. The non-free image of the kettle serves a simple encyclopedic purpose: to visually identify the subject of the article. This purpose can be fulfilled by a new photograph. Since the kettle is a common physical object, taking a new photo of it is a straightforward act of creation, not an act of rights acquisition. This is fundamentally different from a work like a copyrighted film poster, where a new, free equivalent cannot be "created" without infringing on the original work's copyright. Because a freely licensed photo of the kettle can be made, the non-free image is by definition replaceable and must be deleted. Wcam (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replacement free image could reasonably be created. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 29 August 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:Burj Khalifa logo.svg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2025 October 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: keep. By comparison with other logos and images linked in the discussion, it looks like this logo is below TOO in the US and the licence is correct. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid copyright notice: the left part is a fancy drawing, rather than "simple shapes". --Altenmann >talk 23:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am pretty certain it is just Arabic text arranged in a triangular shape. The US has a high threshold of originality, particularly for logos composed of text. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not "just Arabic text", just as ASCII art is not just "English text". It definitely involves a considerable degree of creativity, hence copyrightable. --Altenmann >talk 02:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Since nontrivial copyright issues are not for to a J.Random Wikipedian to decide, I suggest consulting Wikimedia lawyers to make their worth. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII characters arranged in a simple triangle (like this) would definitely be below the threshold of originality in the US. If you set aside your snarky, uncivil name-calling of me ("J.Random Wikipedian"? WTF?) and actually took the time to read the Wikimedia Commons page on US threshold of originality, which I deal with every day as a Commons administrator, you might become better informed. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JRW was a generic reference to !voters and I see nothing insulting. If you claim you are not a random Wikipedian, but rather someone special, then why are you so excited? OK, my comparison with ASCII art was not good indeed. Still, there is an art of arabic calligraphy, and, e.g. File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg is much simpler yet labelled non-free, and c:COM:TOO US does not consider this category. --Altenmann >talk 03:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sure you know what you were doing with the comment. While the Foundation does have lawyers, I think you can agree that it would be ridiculous for them to be brought in for every discussion involving a copyright issue. We discuss things as a community based on evidence. Anyone, a lawyer, layperson, admin, or an ordinary editor are all welcome to chime in to these discussions. While you are correct that c:COM:TOO US does not discuss calligraphy, the section below it (c:COM:SIG US) certainly does. It highlights the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) which notes that calligraphy is not generally protected under US copyright law. The files you cite may certainly have been mis-tagged as non-free by someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of this regulation. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free/delete: @IronGargoyle: I struggle to see your viewpoint. Even if caligraphy by itself isn't protected, the arrangement of it in a tower shape definitely is, since that is a conscious creative decision. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: The profile of building is just an isosceles triangle. Shapes don't get much simpler than that. Compare this to File:JeetKuneDo.svg (an example of a non-copyrightable logo from c:COM:TOO US). The characters are arranged in a circle and yet the copyright office would not register it (see also File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg). I am not saying that characters in the shape of something could never be copyrighted. Arrange Arabic characters in the shape of Donald Duck, and I would agree that would be copyrightable in the US. This is just a simple triangle though. I think we are getting caught up on the aesthetics of Arabic calligraphy. It has an evocative look, certainly, but the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices is very clear when it comes to calligraphy and we need to apply US standards, not UAE standards. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:44, 25 August 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:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg

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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This the logo of Al Jazeera Media Network but used elsewhere, not even illustrating Al-J --Altenmann >talk 03:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retag as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. US copyright law does not generally protect calligraphic works. See my comments at ~~Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 August 13~~ Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 August 21#File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The arrangement of the caligraphy into a teardrop shape is definitely protected. Otherwise a lot of Islamic art would be unprotected. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply in the section above. Like a triangle, a teardrop is a simple shape. Much Islamic calligraphic art is arranged in much more complex patterns than this, but that would extend beyond its calligraphic character. US copyright policy on calligraphy alone is clear. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear creative choices made in the design and arrangement of the image. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 29 August 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:Lady Gaga & Bradley Cooper - Shallow (Single Cover).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: no consensus. ✗plicit 00:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This cover image is fan-made and not an official release by the artist or label. Since it is not published, distributed, or endorsed by the record label or the artist’s team, it fails to meet Wikipedia’s criteria for acceptable use of cover art. Fan-made artwork is not considered encyclopedic content, nor does it qualify under fair use. For this reason, the file should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that the single cover is fan-made? Otherwise, this seems to be original research. The image is taken from the RIAA [1], which is an authoritative music industry source that works in conjunction with all major record labels in the US. The article for "End Game" has used a definitively fan-made single cover in its infobox for years because a reliable music industry source used it once for a radio promotion banner, so even if this cover is fan-made, it seems WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE has been given higher priority in these scenarios. Abby Abangan (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, this source doesn’t indicate at all that it’s a single cover for “Shallow.” It even refers to it as “Lady Gaga Shallow Album,” which makes no sense since Shallow was never released as an album. The RIAA doesn’t usually post official album or single covers, so it’s a mystery why this image appears randomly on the link you provided. I can’t find any other Lady Gaga single covers there. If you can find an article, or Shallow’s entry on the RIAA website, where this image is explicitly used as the single cover, then that would actually mean something and could prove that it was intended for that purpose. But right now, it just seems to be sitting on the website without any official use, at least as far as I can tell. Neither Gaga nor her label has ever used this image anywhere, and I’m pretty sure this is about the fifth time the community has voted to delete it. I don’t think the claim that the cover is fan-made requires evidence—instead, what needs evidence is the claim that it’s official. And the source you provided does not support that at all. Kirtap92 (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The RIAA used the term "album" interchangeably for single covers and album covers used on their website for music certified in 2018/2019 [2] [3]. The RIAA is a valid music industry source. Deshna Tanakreshna (talk) 20:58, 23 August 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:OAK TREE BOOKS.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

does not appear uploader is the author or copyright holder of the work Nayyn (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this one too. Uploader has now been blocked as an undeclared paid editor editor. The low resolution image in question is unlikely to be their own work as claimed. The image is the logo for a commercial business, and appears on the web as such. See https://oaktreebookstulsa.com/ https://www.instagram.com/oaktreebookstulsa/ etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 August 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.