Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 1

May 1

File:Kinks-1965-Portsmouth.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: keep. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader's justification states that the image would be used for critical commentary on the event or poster in question and not solely for illustration, but no commentary was added. The work was therefore only added for illustration and is not fair use. Tkbrett (✉) 11:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NFC##cite_note-3, a single non-free concert tour poster used in the infobox an article about the concert tour itself implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the [poster] conveys. ✗plicit 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NFC rules you cite state that this is only true if there is "critical commentary", which the Template:Non-free poster says as well. There is no critical commentary present. Tkbrett (✉) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated above, the poster is being used in the infobox in the article about the concert tour itself. This is why articles about albums, songs, television, films, concert tours, etc., are allowed to use a single non-free media file—they implicitly satisfy policy, and do not require actual sourced critical commentary in every conceivable case. The footnote I presented above links to three separate RFCs that cemented that practice. Additional non-free files require sourced critical commentary, but this file is the primary and only one used. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Non-free poster explicitly says that the image should "provide critical commentary on the [event] in question or of the poster itself", and should not be used "solely for illustration". That is entirely different from something like Template:Non-free album cover, which does allow for illustration.

Also, the link in your original comment points to the WP:NFC page as a whole and not to any specific note with RFCs. Tkbrett (✉) 15:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are either choosing to overlook or to ignore WP:NFC#cite_note-3 which I quoted above. Three RFCs are linked in that note.

So, do you believe File:Snow White (2025 film) final poster.jpg violates policy as the poster is not discussed in the article, and do you plan to nominate it for deletion? I'd really like to know your answer. ✗plicit 00:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not overlook or ignore anything; your original link was broken.

I pointed out that Template:Non-free album cover and Template:Non-free poster provide different rationale wording, but you ignored that and are now pointing to another template. Template:Non-free poster writes the image should "provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself" and should not be used "solely for illustration". The uploaded image fails to satisfy the criteria of the template as currently worded. Tkbrett (✉) 01:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To no surprise, you've completely dodged the question. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that Template:Non-free film poster has the exact same wording as Template:Non-free poster, but you don't want to address that? Perhaps is underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of policy.

WP:NFC, the supplemental page for WP:NFCC, clearly lays out that representative media files, whether it be album covers, single covers, film posters, book covers, television logos/title cards, concert tour posters, company logos, character photos, and so on, when used in the infobox that is atop the article about the subject in question, automatically meet the contextual significance criterion. But you continue to be hung up on the wording of a template. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NFC rules you keep linking write that promotional material, such as posters, should only be included "For critical commentary" (WP:NFCI). This was pointed out to you in my first response, but you are still pointing to different examples. I have twice pointed out that the rationales for fair-use of album covers and posters is different – both at the respective templates and at WP:NFCI – but you are bringing them up again. Tkbrett (✉) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Explicit. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 29 May 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:Afra Saraçoğlu.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.

Closed due to mistaken nomination resulting from removed deletion notice. Discussion already ongoing here. (non-admin closure) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File should be deleted; subject is still alive and photos can still be made of her ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found and uploaded a free image of the subject. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:45, 1 May 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:Christchurch 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: no consensus. ✗plicit 23:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a shield only version based on the blazon on Commons, someone could make a full version with supporters so I don't know if the non-free use rationale are met TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link? Buffs (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christchurch coat of arms shield.svg TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's their official logo, regardless of whether someone else could create something, this is the manner in which Christchurch has decided to depict it. It is appropriate for their identification. It is NOT PD, but a FUR is reasonable. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being used on wiki as a representation of a logo though its being used as a representation of the arms. Just looking on google images there's a couple of different emblazonments used by the city. This file I would think fails Not replaceable with free media. I mean for most countries we don't just non-free use policy they're "official" emblazonments TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what is being depicted. Are we saying another image is the described blazon? Or are we saying this is the official logo/coat of arms of ChristChurch as they want it depicted? I can draw something that meets the criteria, but it'll look like crap. Even though it meets the criteria, it fails to represent them as they wish to be depicted. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the same could be said of any coat of arms, like we don't use the "official" versions 99% of the time, because a coat of arms properly drawn from the blazon *is* the coat of arms. Government of the United Kingdom doesn't use an "official" version, Coat of arms of Australia, etc. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It completely depends on the context (are we depicting and discussing their official logo?) and whether the image is PD in the first place (this one may be completely PD in the first place). Buffs (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms image is being used as an image of their coat of arms, the City Council has a different logo they usually use for branding. The specific image here isn't PD. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 May 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:Spectra Prime.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 ⚡ 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a derivative of both the Autobots logo and the Decepticons logo. It is definitely too close for comfort IMO. It also seems to be a recreation of a previous image by the same user that was already deleted. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's there at the top, but the logo is completely different, it's with a bat. Spectra321578 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be indeed be covered by the de minimis policy, though I'm not sure if it counts as minimal enough. Bremps... 14:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous FFD mentioned is Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 23#File:Spectra Prime Rise of Algorithm logo.png. The difference is that now the same logo has been placed on the body of a bat. hinnk (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring it back Spectra321578 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spectra, I don't think you understand WHY people are objecting to the image. Saying "please" when users believe it violates copyright doesn't really begin to address the issues at hand. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Query So, the Transformers by mattel undoubtedly have a trademark claim on the logo, but not a spoof/stylized fan art that is clearly indicated to be his own creation/not a new Transformers logo. As for copyright, I'm not finding any record of copyright for those logos. As it was created in 1984 and utilized without a copyright notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years, I believe these logos may be in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spectra321578 This is an example of a viable response. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't violate copyright. It's just that the AI did this to me. Spectra321578 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI didn't "do" anything to you. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did! Spectra321578 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notice is on the back of the box. See this example. hinnk (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logo I created does not violate any copyrights, it says there that the logo was created by me, which way are you looking, are you looking through a monocle? Spectra321578 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fan Art is considered a derivative work and faces limitations on its usage. To really' briefly summarize, you can make it, but not for commercial purposes. As such, it is not free enough to be uploaded for use on Wikipedia unless it meets our non-free content criteria. These are images that, while they are copyrighted, there is a Fair Use exception: a rationale that using them on Wikipedia is necessary and permitted under limited circumstances under US law. In order to insulate Wikipedia from potential copyright lawsuits, we've decided that such images can only be used on specific articles, not user pages. As this is an image that has no encyclopedic purpose and cannot be used on a user page, Wikipedia has no justification to keep such an image. Accordingly, unless you can find usage of those original logos without a copyright (hey, I tried), it has to go. It isn't personal. Also, don't respond with insults. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the toy itself that doesn't include the copyright notice. I see the Registered Trademark notation, but not the (c). Buffs (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Also, I think that the file cannot be hosted on Commons probably due to copyright concerns related to the derivative work.) ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hints that the logo is similar in any way, are you looking through a magnifying glass? Spectra321578 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 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.