Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 19

June 19

File:Rosa Parks Portrait, 1955.jpg

Textbook fail of NFCC1: many free alternatives exist Jay Cubby 02:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would happen, and I may be in the wrong here, but I do not believe that there are and free alternatives that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As I say in the non-free use rationale, there is considerable educational value in a clear photo of Rosa Parks as she was during the boycott and when she refused to move. The only other photo on Commons that even comes close to doing this is this one, which lacks many of the important qualities that make the current photo irreplaceable (Dr. King in the background, clear view of Parks's face, clear context; since the fingerprinting photo could be misconstrued as having been taken when she was initially arrested). These qualities are important because there are numerous misconceptions about Parks's age when she refused to move and the spontaneity of her actions, which are frequently decontextualized as being outside of the broader civil rights movement. However, and I do not mean this as a slight towards anyone (I recognize that attempts to remove the image are made in good faith and may be best from a legal perspective), I am growing increasingly demoralized by this conflict over the image and do not really have any more constructive comments to add to the conversation. I do think that the encyclopedia will be worse if we delete this image, but if it has to be deleted, then so be it.

Also pinging @Randy Kryn, who I know has an interest in the images on this article and in this image in particular. Spookyaki (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spookyaki, there is no available equivalent to the historic juxtaposition present in the image. Rosa Parks is known for her action within the context of the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. The photo is a historical descriptor of the main two event participants: Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Her joy in what she is involved in in real time is evident in the photograph (a way of emoting "finally!" in a smile). The importance of the photo in tying together a life and its influence presents its own visual argument that it belongs exactly where it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argument for keeping it on an article about the event, if one existed. It's not a valid reason for using a non free image in the infobox of Parks' article when lots of free images exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~it appears that the photo is in the public domain and is on commons as File:Rosaparks.jpg.~~ Buffs (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is most likely not, unfortunately. Check the deletion discussion on that image. Spookyaki (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale simply changes. According to the archives, the image is indeed copyrighted. I question that assessment, but I have nothing to offer in contradiction. As it is copyrighted, We need a FUR in order to keep it and the fact that King is in the photo too does not make it particularly unique. I'll grant you it's interesting and historic, but it's still copyrighted and other photos suffice for purposes of identification. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per ratinale given in the foto file Djflem (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC1. The point of a lead image is to allow for visual identification of the subject, and there are plenty of images at Commons which let us see what she looked like. Note that the existence of a "better" image under non-free terms is not sufficient to enable the use of NFCC1 images; we frequently use somewhat ugly images of BLPs because the high-quality images are non-free. And if it's good enough for BLPs—which are held to a higher standard—it is good enough for non-BLPs. The various WP:ILIKEIT arguments above are unpersuasive. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 14:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Buffs and HouseBlaster are correct that, for WP:NFCC#1, the image used in the infobox serves to visually identify the subject. The presence of MLK in the background doesn't help us identify Parks in the foreground, and features like age and posture generally aren't important, especially since her public activities continued for several decades. hinnk (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear arguments above that this fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: numerous free alternatives exist, and the fair use rationale is weak as it doesn't consider that Parks remained famous and notable long after the 1950s. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that this might be permissable if it were in the body, on the Refusal to move section, as a infobox image you can replace it with many other versions. Even putting it in the section I just mentioned only has a relatively weak argument, compared to no argument as a infobox image.

File:Stéphane Trano, Mitterrand Une Affaire d'Amitié.jpg

Not the main subject of discussion. Roast (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC + nom. Buffs (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the book were independently notable, then it would be acceptable to use this image on an article about the book. But use on the author's article fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Delhi) design.jpg

Does not significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Free images of the stadium post renovation will show all of the features in this image, so also fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur w/ nom. This isn't necessary and fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:N.F.-Board logo.svg

I just found that File:Logo N.F.-Board.png exists on Wikicommons, uploaded by Jean Luc-Kit himself in 2020. So that means if we use that instead of this SVG version, we know there's not a copyright violation here. However, whether or not this complies with WP:NFCC§1:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

may be uncertain, and may need to be discussed. The reason that is so, is because of WP:NFC§Multiple restrictions:

For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder. If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity.

So should it be deleted in accordance with this, to avoid any uncertainty; or should it acquire the copyright of the version uploaded by Kit, and continue to be used here? wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason the .png file shouldn't be used in lieu of a lower res .svg Buffs (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vectorisation of a image that is, in most circumstances only available in PNG/JPG form, and of really low resolution. I ended up getting caught up in other things so I couldn't respond until 23:00; but if need be, this SVG could be edited to basically copy the PNG that Kit uploaded, and could, possibly, inherently be called a superior version to the PNG version of which Kit had uploaded. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 03:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is a derivative work. It cannot obtain new copyright without substantial changes. It is not labeled correctly. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using 2 non-free images, and thus violating WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items. Either File:N.F.-Board logo.svg or File:NF-Board.png (the non-free version on en.Wikipedia) must therefore be removed and deleted to comply with NFCC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this upload, it appears the images are mislabeled and are not non-free. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed the N.F.-Board to ask about the copyright status on Wikicommons. wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]