Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 5

February 5

File:General Accident 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is labeled incorrectly, it is not a logo. The correct labeling - {{Non-free 3D art}} - prohibits the use of three-dimensional non-free images only for identification. — Ирука¹³ 01:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It is the coat of arms on display at their HQ. A FUR would be appropriate, but that Coat of Arms has been on display it was created in 1931 by the Lord Lyon who died in 1953, as is the custom. 70 years from his date of death would be 2023 and it is therefore in the public domain. {{PD-Art}} would be the appropriate tag. Buffs (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete. Photo itself is copyrighted per website. I misread where the photo originated. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WIKIFAN788899 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are 2 copyruights at issue. The logo is PD basded on Buff's assessment, but this image is not merely the logo, it is a photo of a 3-D implementation of the logo. The photo itself is copyrighted. Given that this logo is now PD, there is no justification for the use of this image as non-free content as a free flat 2-D logo would not be copyrighted and used. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely concur that, while the object/logo are both PD, the photo itself is copyrighted and should be protected as such. I misread the source on this one. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 17 February 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:Short n' Sweet (Deluxe).jpeg

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 ⚡ 16:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. The image for the announced deluxe edition is not required for the understanding of the article. Not to mention, the new artwork is near-identical to the original. livelikemusic (TALK!) 03:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image of the deluxe edition is relevant, because it visually represents the updated release; Even if the new artwork resembles, it is still a distinct version. Moreover, some articles also include deluxe edition covers in their infoboxes. Camilasdandelions (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change in artwork would be better described in words supported by incline citations within the article's body. Its removal would not be "detrimental to that understanding," as NFCC#8 cites. A change in image, still representing a blonde, White woman, is not necessary enough for it to be included in terms of non-free content. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 04:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless the cover is notable (e.g., caused controversy or made headlines), it definitely doesn't need to be on the page. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 06:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dylx 07:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most albums have the deluxe edition’s cover on their page; it is standard practice. 119.234.10.152 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Buffs (talk) 01:50, 10 February 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:Concertforsandy.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: Relicense as a PD-textlogo. Whpq (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not seeing anything in this image that qualifies the image for copyright in the United States. The only aspect I could imagine would cause that are the notches in the "2"s, but even those are geometric shapes. Retag as {{PD-textlogo}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retag per nom. @Steel1943:, go ahead and make the change. I'd add {{Trademark}} as the Chase logo is present Buffs (talk) 21:23, 5 February 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.