Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 9

May 9[edit]

File:Patriots Retired12.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, the first two contain a derivative work of the non-free logo File:New England Patriots logo.svg. The remaining three contain the non-free logo File:New England Patriots logo old.svg ✗plicit 06:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2023 (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:Carroll dress.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stated purpose of "It will be used only to illustrate the relevant topic." is so vague as to be pointless. The discussion about the role of the dress in the court case does not need an image to understand it. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I've rewritten the description to emphasize relevant points. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that requires that a photo be present to understand it. -- Whpq (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a non-free image of a dress doesn't need to be seen by the reader to corroborate that a specific dress exists. There is also nothing really in the section E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump#Pre-trial (January–April 2023) or any other part of the article that is going to be hard for the reader to understand if they don't see this particular image per WP:NFC#CS. If some kind of sourced critical commentary about this specific photo of the dress or about how the dress was presented as evidence (i.e. the meanings of the different colored sections) of the dress were found and added to the article (not the file's page but the article), then maybe a valid justification for non-free use could be made; however, simply wanting to show the dress to illustrate relevant details about the overall proceedings is pretty much an example of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in my opinion and thus not a valid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2023 (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:Bon Jovi- Have A Nice Day.ogg[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 2023 May 17. ✗plicit 01:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bon Jovi- Have A Nice Day.ogg (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.

File:Bon Jovi- Lay Your Hands On Me.ogg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sample unneeded to understand the whole song Lay Your Hands on Me. Its contextual significance to the song not yet well proven. Song title and band name already suffice to guide users seeking the whole recording. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2023 (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:Bon Jovi- Never Say Goodbye.ogg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sample unneeded to understand the whole song Never Say Goodbye (Bon Jovi song). Its contextual significance to the song not yet well proven. Song title and band name already suffice to guide users seeking the whole recording. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2023 (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:Bon Jovi- This Ain't A Love Song.ogg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sample unneeded to understand the whole song This Ain't a Love Song. Its contextual significance to the song not yet well proven. Song title and band name already suffice to guide users seeking the whole recording. George Ho (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2023 (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:Friends169.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 ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De-PRODded screenshot merely identifying characters in the scene related to the plot, which can be summarized easily. Its contextual significance to The One with Monica and Chandler's Wedding not yet well proven. George Ho (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8. The removal of this screenshot would not be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the article. ✗plicit 01:29, 17 May 2023 (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:Spanish–American War Memorial (Columbus, Ohio), 2018.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a chance {{PD-US-not renewed}} could apply to the sculpture. Although the inscription does contain a copyright notice dated 1937, the copyright term was only 28 years at the time, and I could find no evidence that it had been renewed. The copyright records seem to only contain the original 1937 registration. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's update.

ɱ

(talk) 02:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the scupture itself is now considered to be within the public domain, then that would leave only the copyright status of the photo to resolve. Any non-free photo of a PD sculpture is almost certainly going to be seen as failing WP:FREER and unless the author and uploader are the same person a statement such as "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" is probably not sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Even if they're the same person (which does seem to be the case), it would be much better for an explicit free license to be added for the photo to make it easier to re-use by others, and even better still for the author to email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT. Only the copyright holder can add such a license, which can make things complicated perhaps when the copyright holder is no longer around; that doesn't, however, appear to be the case here. anyway, once that has been done, there should be no problem in having the original uploaded version of the file restored and then moving it to Commons. If, on the other hand, the sculpture is still copyright protected, then the file needs to remain non-free per c:COM:FOP United States; even then though, a separate license should still probably be added for the photo just to make things clearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not seeing that @Another Believer: is an avid photographer and editor here, and only licensed the photo as "non-free" to prevent any potential FOP issues. I think he can clear up the confusion here. Nor is it really necessary for Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons photographers to email consent to VRT when they are the author and uploader in good standing in the Wikimedia community. The photo can be re-licensed with {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} and moved to Commons. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's up? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that you release the photo under a cc-by-sa 4.0 license? The licensing of the sculpture itself is separate issue. -- Whpq (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq Sure, no problem. Is there anything I need to do specifically? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest thing to do would be to add a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or another acceptable free license of your choice for the photo to the file's page. You can do this by adding a separate section for the license or by adding the template to the |other= in the non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly Like so? Feel free to fix for me. --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: As a note, there is a {{photo of art}} template for free photographs of non-free artworks. If the art is free and the photograph is transferred to Commons, then c:Template:Licensed-FOP can be used there. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as PD / CC given that a search for a renewal record turns mup nothing which indicates the statue is out of copyright, and the uploader of the photo has confirmed a free license for the photo itself. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense based on the above discussion. Once the file has been relicensed, it's original version can be restored and it can be tagged for a move to Commons. @Another Believer: If you've any qualms or questions about making your photo freely available for others to pretty much reuse as they please, it's probably better to make them known now. The license you've chosen for the photo is fine for Commons and Wikipedia, and there should be no problems moving forward as long as you're OK with things like WP:REUSE, c:COM:ENFORCE and c:COM:LRV. Thank you for uploading your photos to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:33, 18 May 2023 (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.