Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2

March 2

File:Olderandwiser-lizzymcalpine-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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCCP 3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:45, 2 March 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:Scythian tatoo.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. There is no consensus as to whether the mummified skin is a 2D or 3D work. Additionally, no consensus was reached as to whether the image otherwise meets the NFCC, and there's a plausible argument that it might. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking photographs in the Hermitage without flash is permitted. A free image can be created. WP:NFCC#1 — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as PD I find it highly questionable that a tattoo from ~200BC could attain copyright. This image appears to be a slavish copy of a 2D work of art. No additional copyright could attach due to this. I get that the Museum wants to have copyrights on this, but I can't see how this image would be anything other than PD (despite the disclaimers on the website). Buffs (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark PD. Mere reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the tattoo design may be too ancient for copyright but the design is on the preserved body of a person. The photo is not merely a shot of a 2-D tattoo but of the arm on which the tattoo was placed. The photo itself is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an arm here. I see the skin removed from the flesh and laid out (stretched?) Buffs (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Whpq?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 07:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8 as a non-free file. I've been on the fence regarding the possibility as marking this with a free license for this for a while, but I think Whpq is right. This isn't a faithful 2D reproduction – the skin has various bumps, folds, ridges, and similar details that would make it ineligible to qualify as such. Additionally, the lightening choice, be it by the photographer or that of the museum which displayed it, also indicates that this is a photo which has its own separate copyright to that of the tattoo. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying it's a photo of a 3D work of PD art? I think it certainly could be argued it once may have been, but it is clearly flattened out as much as possible. Buffs (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buffs. Ajpolino (talk) 04:17, 13 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:KornélSámuel.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 ⚡ 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KornélSámuel.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the sculpture is public domain, the copyright on the photo of the sculpture must still be considered. Unless there is information provide on the provenance of the photo that indicates the photo is also public domain, or otherwise freely licensed, then we need to assume this is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 2 March 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:Moeed-Pirzada.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: speedy delete per WP:F9 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Moeed Pirzada is salted, there's no reason to keep this image. MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. the given source notes explicitly on each image that it is copyrighted with no Creative Commons licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 2 March 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:Coat of arms of Canada.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: keep in Coat of arms of Canada, remove other instances. ✗plicit 00:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion

It seems facially unacceptable to host a non-free image so we can have the "official rendering" of a coat of arms. File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is exactly as correct a representation of said arms, and aesthetic preference or anachronistic sense of "official correctness" in a medium where it does not belong is not adequate justification for use of non-free media. The stated rationale, frankly, reads as reaching nonsense looking for an excuse not to use a free rendering of the arms. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many talks about this before...... the official version and the fake version are not even close. Moxy🍁 23:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even that doesn't matter. If a free rendering is wrong, then we should fix it. Use of non-free media is reserved for when no free alternative is possible, not when it doesn't presently exist. Remsense ‥ 论 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make it exactly the same or it would be a copyright violation..... thus why we have this here. We should never present to our readers and inaccurate version saying that it's official when there is a registered version. Moxy🍁 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the specification of the arms are inaccurately represented in the free version? They can be fixed so it doesn't matter, but I'm curious. This is a coat of arms, so any representation that follows its blazon is correct, per my original post. Your idea that an etically identical graphic is the only correct rendering is idiosyncratic and especially indefensible with copyright considerations. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an official copyrighted version that is an official symbol. Almost every aspect from shapes to colors etc have to diverge from the copyrighted version so it doesn't violate the copyright. We have discussed this many times with those familiar with copyright for two decades now. This is what we consider a time sink.... most of us aren't here full time and would like to devote our time to other things over trying to explain the same arguments again. Moxy🍁 23:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't like to relitigate things like this if I can help it, but given the copyright considerations it is irresponsible to let it go where I otherwise would like to. The basic reality of what the symbol actually is is being ignored. I don't want to waste your time, but I'd like to discuss the actual reasoning—that's not required to be with you if you're not up to it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones.... but this has come up so many times...so I'm wondering if the real question is are the user generated versions so close to the copyrighted versions that they should be up for deletion as it seems many can't distinguish them. Perhaps this proposal is all backwards. The copyright says "Any image so closely resembling this logo as to be likely to be confused with it would constitute a copyright and/or trademark infringement under Canadian law. As such, any free-use image would either be so significantly different as to be unsuitable to represent the Canada, or would be so nearly resembling this image as to be a copyright and/or trademark violation under Canadian law"Moxy🍁 00:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay focused on the issue rather than the case law, if that's okay with you:

For me there's a real distinction between the user generated ones and the real ones...

What is it? Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole bunch of user generated files of this nature..... So really what is the best way to protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement. Why would we not discuss this? File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, File:Coat of arms of Canada (Canadian Royal Crown).svg, File:Canadian Arms Modified 2.png, File:Coat of arms of Canada (2022-).png Moxy🍁 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict its use. It's overused for a non-free file. I can see the point of showing the official version of the arms at Arms of Canada but this file is distributed across several pages, which is not appropriate and doesn't meet the non-free content criteria. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep: @Remsense: What has changed since the previous deletion discussion to merit changing the outcome of that discussion? The comments from the closing admin provide a strong rationale for keeping this file and restricting its use to only the Arms of Canada article; any rendition would suffice in the other articles. - tucoxn\^talk 13:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion. I don't see that anything of note has changed nor am I seeing a new argument Buffs (talk) 17:12, 4 March 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.