Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 16

< April 15	April 17 >

April 16[edit]

File:Bros2017.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work of non-free content, I do not believe there is any reason that these screens are not copyrightable, it being live footage of the stage is not relevant, the camera is operated by a person and the picture is captured in a tangible medium using their intellectual thought, regardless, the second screen from the left does not look like live footage of the stage. It is not de minimis because the use is not incidental, it makes up a significant part of the composition as a whole and removing it would remove an essential part of the image. The image was also deleted on Commons. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Georg Nusch ceiling painting.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georg Nusch ceiling painting.jpg, it isn't possible to confirm whether this painting is in the public domain, it says "I was given permission by the hotel owner to take the photo and upload to Wikipedia" on the file page but this is irrelevant if the hotel owner is not the copyright holder. It is unused. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close. Relisted twice, and it's still not obvious what is being requested here. If there are NFCC issues, then please state them. If this is an editorial matter, then please use the article's talk page. -FASTILY 22:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If picture sleeve is preferred more, then let's keep the 1976 live single, which was more successful than the original 1975 studio one. If the singer's nationality and song's origin matter more for representation, then let's go for the vinyl label of UK live single, which I uploaded and preferred more than the sleeves. Well, then why not keep them both? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Speaking at the U.S. State Dept.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been repeatedly uploaded. The uploader claims that they have taken and own the picture, but this cannot be so for either or both of two reasons:

It is a screenshot. It is thus an ipso facto copyright violation of the copyright owner's work
The uploader has stated, unequivocally and eventually, on my talk page that they are the subject of this picture, one Randall Lee Goodden. this permalink is useful, but the thread is lengthy, in the segment Latest Edits to Randall Lee Goodden highlighted in this diff.

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).

Either of those reasons, unless WP:OTRS is used to provide satisfactory evidence of ownership or permission, is sufficient to delete this file Fiddle Faddle 06:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the original broadcast can be verified to be under an acceptable license. If the original broadcast is a work of the US government, then it would be public domain, but no verifiable source information has been provided. -- Whpq (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Reuters News Interview.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been repeatedly uploaded. The uploader claims that they have taken and own the picture, but this cannot be so for either or both of two reasons:

It is a screenshot. It is thus an ipso facto copyright violation of the copyright owner's work. In this case that appears to be Reuters
The uploader has stated, unequivocally and eventually, on my talk page that they are the subject of this picture, one Randall Lee Goodden. this permalink is useful, but the thread is lengthy, in the segment Latest Edits to Randall Lee Goodden highlighted in this diff.

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).

Either of those reasons, unless WP:OTRS is used to provide satisfactory evidence of ownership or permission, is sufficient to delete this file Fiddle Faddle 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the original broadcast can be verified to be under a free license. Given that this is a Reuters interview, the likelihood of the original work being freely licensed is vanishingly small. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Glass Art.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a recent artwork. Supposedly a work by Doug Bayer from http://bayerglassworks.com/. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no freedom of panorama for art works. Note that this same image is used in a gallery of photos at this museum page. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplicate screenshots[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2021 May 10. FASTILY 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Word for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Word 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MS Word 2007.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various audio clips for Everywhere at the End of Time[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn per below -FASTILY 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The files constitute a copyright violation of WP:SAMPLE, which states that "a small number may be appropriate if accompanied by text;" these clips make the audio clips count go up to six. And, as the uploader of them, I can say that they don't serve much purpose on the article I've uploaded them to, the EATEOT album series. The first album of the series, which already has an audio clip about it, is quite similar to the second and third, which have their audio clips being the aforementioned "What does it matter how my heart breaks" and "And heart breaks." Following this pattern, the fourth album, which also has an audio clip about it, is quite similar to the fifth, which has its audio clip being "Advanced plaque entanglements." (y'all get what I'm saying, right?) Wetrorave (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think one for each stage is fine. Each stage is different enough to warrant at least one audio snippet in my opinion. I think some stages, especially Stage 5, could even potentially warrant more audio snippets. Invalid ^OS _talk 14:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InvalidOS: I don't know. I kind of agree and disagree with you at the same time. While WP:SAMPLE is indeed a policy, it is stated on the top of it that "occasional exceptions may apply." While the albums are certainly different from each other, they are similar at the same time, especially the first three. I'm gonna think about this for a bit and reply later whether or not I agree or disagree with deleting the samples.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yeah, ok, they can stay. Each stage is indeed different enough to have one audio clip anyway. After making a re-write of the article, I can say that they are necessary for explaining each stage, as each stage is literally an individual album.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning to keep the samples became even bigger now that I re-read WP:SAMPLE and saw this:
"In the case of a multi-section/movement work, such as a symphony or opera, the use of one relevant sample per section/movement is acceptable."
And EATEOT is basically a multi-section work, with six different albums (and even those individual albums may need more samples, such as Stage 3).
~ Wetrorave (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Goodden Speaking2.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as F1: duplicate file. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is of the uploader

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Goodden Speaking.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as F11. The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, with no evidence of permission. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is of the uploader

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken by a friend at my request sitting in the front row, using my camera. A Flaneur (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Metal 2 Logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close. In a discussion that was closed less than a month ago, it was determined this image was likely above TOO. Please refrain from necromancing recently closed discussions, thanks. -FASTILY 22:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this copyrightable? Its components are simple -- a gradient background and a 3D M, and there's some more complicated stuff kept on Commons. The geometry is very simple (and directly based on a letter) and I think it might not pass the United States TOO. DemonDays64 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.