Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 3

March 3

Non-free image use in Alexa Meade

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. ✗plicit 14:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was first discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 71#COI/Paid editor uploading non-free images for their employer a little over a month ago, but that thread got archived without much being resolved; so, I'm bringing it up for discussion here at FFD to seek input from the Wikipedia community.

There are seven non-free images of Alexa Meade's work being used throughout Alexa Meade, but I'm not sure that any of them really meet all ten WP:NFCCP given that there are two VRT-verified images of Meade and their work (File:Double Take-Alexa Meade.jpg and File:Blueprint Installation-Alexa Meade.jpg also being used in the same article. All of the non-free images are sourced to Meade's official website just like the two VRT-verified ones uploaded to Commons, and all of the non-free ones were uploaded by the same user who has a declared "paid editing" connection to Meade, which means they have access to Meade. I don't really see any need to have six non-free image showing Meade style actually painting a living person per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, but also even per WP:FREER because there's already an example of that uploaded to Commons that Meade themselves seems to have agreed to release under a free license; moreover, the other non-free one of New York City department store might not actually need to be non-free if Meade is the copyright holder of both the photo and the display. It might even possibly be argued that the display itself could be considered a case of c:COM:DM given that there's freedom of panorama for buildings in the US per c:COM:FOP US because the display is part of a larger scene and not really just filling up the entire shot by itself. In that case, a non-free image of the photo would most also fail FREER.

These are all nice photos perhaps, but I'm not sure Wikipedia should be hosting them as non-free when Meade themselves has already demonstrated a willingness to verify their WP:CONSENT with VRT. If Meade doesn't mind giving their CONSENT for just some of the seven, then that's OK; however, there's still no reason to keep the remaining as non-free. If Meade doesn't want to give their consent for any of the seven, then again I don't see any justification for them given the two VRT-verified ones already being used in the article. Just for reference, I haven't nominated these for discussion here just because they were uploaded by someone connected to Meade; I would've done the same if they had been uploaded by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an image of an artist's work is important, but this is well beyond what is necessary. If the artist wishes to release more images via CC-by-X, they are welcome to do so. Until such time, the bulk of these images need to go. They violate NFCC as noted by the nominator. I can see justification for keeping a maximum of 2 if the descriptions are well contained in the prose and are representative of 3rd party sources. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Exterior of Wonderland Dreams by Alexa Meade was located at 529 5th Ave, NYC.jpg certainly shouldn't be kept as non-free, but could quite possibly be relicensed and kept if the WP:CONSENT of the person who took the photo can be verified by VRT. The photo is pretty much not more than New York City street scene that could be licensed per c:COM:L due to c:COM:FOP US; the actual display itself (despite the file's name) seems such a minor part of the photo that it could reasonably be argue to be a case of c:COM:DR and incidental to image as a whole; of course, any attempt to crop or enlarge the photo too show the window display in more detail, would change that but the current photo seems to only be lacking the photographer's consent. The other non-free photos are, in my opinion, much harder to justify and probably can only be kept if they're relicensed under an acceptable free license. There's already a freely-licensed example of Meade's work being used in the article so a non-free image isn't needed as a representative example of her work and style. The three non-free images of Lil Buck and one of Brian Stokes Mitchell all seem to fail NFCC#1 because of this but they also don't seem to meet WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Of the two remaining non-free images, I think only File:Alexa Meade painted model interacting with a guest at the Wonderland Dreams Exhibition.jpg can be reasonably argue to be OK to keep as non-free (if NFCC#1 isn't considered an issue) because the photo does kind of show an aspect of Meade's work (the interactive and immersive nature of that particular exhibition) that was most likely something that did receive critical commentary in reliable sources and has the potential of being expanding upon in Alexa Meade#Wonderland Dreams on 5th Avenue. If it comes down to a choice between this image and File:Wonderland Dreams installation painted by Alexa Meade.jpg, then the interacation image seems better justified per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 6 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:TwelfthDoctor.jpng.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 ⚡ 01:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, it was determined a free use alternative for the Twelfth Doctor existed, rendering a fair use image unnecessary. This image was also present in the Twelfth Doctor article and shifted to the infobox instead of the free use alternative that was determined by consensus to be used instead. This one should likely be deleted for the same reasons as the last one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 3 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:Honeymoon urban outfitters.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 ⚡ 01:01, 11 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) ★ 21:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, orphaned NFC. Buffs (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the alternate cover is not shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 10 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:Caesar Cardini (Cesare Cardini) 1896-1956.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: withdrawn. ✗plicit 23:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have found a public domain photograph of Cardini c:File:Caesar_Cardini_1935.jpg , so the fair use photo is unnecessary ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:14, 3 March 2025

Comment: For future reference Howardcorn33, files don't really need to be discussed at FFD for this reason unless they're deletion is contentious. Generally, it better and faster to simply tag the file in question with {{di-replaceable non-free use}} per WP:F7 when the outcome seems fairly obvious. A file tagged for speedy deletion will always be reviewed by an administrator and the speedy deletion can be contested by the uploader if they want; if the reviewing administrator feels further discussion is needed, then they will decline to delete the file and recommend things be continued at FFD.
As for the Commons photo you found, it looks OK except perhaps for the {{PD-US-no notice}} license you added. The Instagram account doesn't appear to be the original source for the photo, which means you can really go by that for a "no notice" assessment just because you don't see a notice there in that particular version; there could've been a notice in the border (if any) or on the back that's not visible on Instagram. Whoever uploaded the photo to Instagram most likely wasn't worried about the photo's copyright status, and least to the extent the Wikipedia and Commons are, because they probably would be covered under fair use. The copyright license for Mexico looks OK at first glance, but you might want to ask about the license for the US at c:COM:VPC because a {{PD-US-not renewed}} license might be more appropriate instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The furthest back i can go to the source of the image is this watermarked and zoomed out version at the San Diego History Center website. I linked to the instagram post because it was the only good version of the photo I could find that didn't include the watermark and also mentioned the date the image was made. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice there's a copyright notice in the lower left corner of the archived photo you found that says "© SDHC"? Whether the SDCC's claim is a valid and not a case of unintentional copyfraud might be worth discussing, but it does seem to make a claim of {{PD-US-no notice}} seem incorrect, doesn't it? In principle, whoever takes a photo is considered to be its copyright holder; so, whoever took the photo back in 1935 would be considered to be its copyright holder. Moreover, works tend to become eligible for copyright only after being published, which can mean different things depending upon the copyright laws of the country of first publication. If its assumed that Mexico is the country of first publication and the copyright holder is unknown (i.e. anonymous), then c:Template:PD-Mexico seems like it might be OK. The licensing under US copyright law isn't as clear, though, because the copyright under US copyright law could've been restored per the URAA if the work was still considered under copyright protection in Mexico as of January 1, 1996. Finally, licenses like "PD-US-no notice" and "PD-US not renewed" apply mainly to works first published in the US or published within the US within a specific period of time after being first published aborad. So, whether either of those two licenses can be used depends on whether the image was published in the US. These are all probably things you should asked about at c:COM:VPC because that's where you uploaded the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'll self-nominate the images for speedy deletion considering the legal complexity of the situation. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the deletion nomination. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:51, 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.