Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 24

May 24

File:Mercy in swimsuit.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 can be undeleted if permission is confirmed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale is plainly mistaken. While it does illustrate the subject, it is low-resolution, and it's plausible no free equivalent currently exists, the idea that no free alternative "could be created that would adequately give the same information" is plainly wrong. Even if Mercy is a copyrighted character and so no "free" alternative could exist, a much freer alternative could exist which isn't taken from Twitter without permission. A similar thing happened recently with Gardevoir fan art which was deleted. While non-trivial, it would be 100% possible to commission an artist or to create such a work oneself, making it "an example of sexualization of an Overwatch character in fan-produced media." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. An artwork or cosplay photo released into public domain could serve the same purpose, so there is a "freer alternative" since this isn't just meant to show the design of Mercy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Not disagreeing with Zx that it can be replaced, but I feel a cosplay photo wouldn't fulfill the majority of what the article is discussing, which is about third-party porn being produced. Additionally artwork couldn't be released in the public domain in this sense for commons, as it'd be a rendition of a copyrighted character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Agreed on both points: a third-party cosplay would be meaningfully different in a way that detracts from its relevance to the article and that digital Mercy artwork could not be placed into the public domain. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheTechnician27: If I may, it seems part of the problem is that the author was not reached out to for permission. I have a twitter account and would be willing to (and can even archive it properly). And if that fails we can open a discussion on WP:VGCHAR on a possible alternative image. I think a particular useful point here is that this was cited in a published article as an example of the material, where a random commission would be, well, just a random commission.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the change almost 3 years ago and explained why here. I think a better solution has been found by Kung Fu Man's suggestion that the author can be reached out to for permission and apologies for not having done so initially 3 years ago. I do think the idea that this is a genuine example of the material as opposed to a random commission is an important note and exactly what I was going for, though I do suppose a random commission could plausibly mimic the style. Just in case this comes up, I have no problem with the image being lewder (as per WP:NOTCENSORED) and I view this particular example as on the tamer/milder end of the spectrum of what it could be. I get the idea behind the cosplay suggestion, but would be opposed to that as a replacement. Soulbust (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with WP:NOTCENSORED, although I think the image you chose strikes an effectively perfect balance to demonstrate the subject matter without distracting from the article. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of asking about getting permission to use, since every time I've done it it was for the sake of using it on Commons where it must be under a copyleft license (I think that can differ on Wikipedia). I'd have no objections at all to Kung Fu Man trying, and I imagine an artist may treat that as very good publicity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I definitely thought it was the proper amount of lewd to get the general vibe of the subject material across, and when I found that example (via this Kotaku article) I really did think it was the perfect medium/compromise for the concerns I had seen other editors raise about previous images/visuals on the article; I initially thought of using the full image but thought the Mercy crop would help alleviate any potential concerns over the image being overt or unnecessarily gratuitous (again, not that it would bother me as per WP:NOTCENSORED but still). Ditto on Kung Fu Man trying, that would be great if it's a successful ask. Soulbust (talk) 05:59, 31 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:Eden cheese logo.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: Relicense * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relicensing debate: this logo may be copyrighted in the Philippines due to non-existent threshold of originality standard (c:COM:TOO Philippines), but enwiki is not obliged to follow the not-so-Wikimedia-friendly copyright law of the Philippines, by the logic of Template talk:Freedom of panorama (US only)#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?. This logo must be relicensed to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}, so that it can be reused in more articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense per nom. Well beneath the U.S. threshold of originality. hinnk (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk are the deleted revisions also beneath US TOO? If so, those must be restored as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know I can't view them, right? hinnk (talk) 22:30, 27 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:Sonnadhu Nee Thanaa.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, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this is not the 1978 film as I checked the link. In the credits, the cast/crew are completely different. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 24 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:The Devil Wears Prada drummer Daniel Williams.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 as F9 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion by me before it was reverted by uploader who only changed the source and author; both new and previous source did not have a license. Image is by Chelsea Lauren for Getty Images; see https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/drummer-daniel-williams-of-the-devil-wears-prada-performs-news-photo/147516476. reppop^talk 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should note that it would not be acceptable under NFCC due to WP:GETTY: A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images). reppop^talk 09:37, 24 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:Dave Shapiro (music agent) photo, 2015.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 as F9 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion by me before it was reverted by uploader who only changed the source and author; both new and previous source did not have a license. New image by Stephanie Siau for Sound Talent Group as provided by the AP, see https://apnews.com/article/dave-shapiro-died-plane-crash-472ba1f06088b1dfc7880cbd15ef2e28. Old image by CreativeLive on YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js3RzLn9d4. reppop^talk 09:33, 24 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:First-National-Pictures-Logo.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: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible violation of NFCC and invalid fair use rationale because of two factors. First, this file has invalid license due to this file may be low quality (in jpg), and the second and most important, the logo was made in 1924, therefore i should be a public domain long time ago. Because of these reasons, this file should be deleted from English Wikipedia, and if possible, transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons and tag (PD-US-1923) or similar license and even (SVG|logo) 103.111.102.118 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from local en-wiki and transfer to Commons This logo was created in 1924. Due to fact that it was created more than a hundred years ago and its copyright was assumed to be expired six years ago (if they register the logo), i think this file needs to be deleted and transfer to Wikimedia Commons as soon as possible. Thank you. 103.41.171.100 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons There are a few versions of the logo, some created after 1929, but the one in File:Twinkletoes (1926).webm is close enough that it should be safe to say this wouldn't be protected under copyright anymore. hinnk (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons No evidence this logo (or subsequent versions) maintained any copyright protections as required at the time. They are all PD. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Commons I don't believe this logo had any copyright protections during its lifespan. Even if it was registered by the US Copyright Office, giving that it was published in 1924, its copyright was presumably expired in 2019 regardless. Wikimedia Commons is the perfect place to host already copyright-expired and low quality JPG logos. 103.144.14.10 (talk) 10:33, 30 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:MartinellisBottle.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, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not irreplaceable, as a user-created photo of the bottle might not violate copyright. Jay Cubby 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User could create a similar image that would not violate copyright. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 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.