Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 12

March 12

File:Aulochrome.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -Fastily 04:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be directly taken from Aulochrome.com. While I think this is a non-controversial edit, there were two complicating factors: first, I don't have a ton of experience at this particular thing, and second, since it appears to be wrapped up in a current blocked user's discussion about their use of copyrighted images, I don't wish to tread on anyone's toes CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This image was uploaded before the user was blocked, and they seem to have made a concerted effort to comply with the WP:NFCC policy despite their past mistakes. Their use of this image also looks like it meets all 10 of the non-free content criteria, so I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be kept. Consequently, I am recommending WP:SK, per Applicability points 1 & 3. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my concerns -- which I probably should have expanded upon -- was that it appeared to be an artistic depiction of the instrument, but if that's not a concern here, then I have nothing to object to, and I apologize for the time you had to expend on this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs No need to apologize, discussion is the point of this process and I am happy to give of my time to participate in that, no matter the outcome. As for this file, I don't think the fact that it is an artistic depiction rather than a photograph changes anything, especially since all of the non-free criteria seem to have been met (including that the creation of a free equivalent isn't possible since the instrument isn't being produced commercially), although a user with more experience in this area might know of other issues I'm not aware of, so we'll see what the discussion brings. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio of [1] with no evidence of permission, as mentioned above. It fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability) because it is probably possible to obtain an aulochrome, take a picture, and upload it under a free license. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 22:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Three Sixty May I ask how it is a copyvio? It is a copyrighted image, yes, but it was uploaded as non-free and with a suitable fair-use rationale no less. As such, I seem to be missing where the issue lies, as well as why permission would be needed, as the image is of a 2D artwork taken from a website, which would not normally require permission if uploaded under fair-use (unlike if it were a photograph taken of a painting in a gallery, which would require the copyright holder's permission under c:COM:FOP US). Secondly, I did some research on Aulochromes and they not a commercially produced instrument, so the only way to obtain one would be to build one yourself (although the result would not constitute a true Aulochrome, as the website states that the only actual ones to exist were built by the inventor). Based on that, I think the image passes WP:NFCC#1. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of mass-production definitely muddies the waters. However, it does also appear that the aulochrome is/was on public tour in Europe ([2]), and there were third-party non-free images taken ([3][4]). WP:GETTY states that "A publicity image of a commercial product released by its manufacturer, if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken" is not acceptable non-free content (emphasis mine). I'm not aware of the exact replaceability thresholds that are applied here, so you may very well be correct. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that result here is likely going to come down to replaceability, which is definitely a tricky area in this case, since we don't have much way of telling whether the instrument taken on tour was one of the real Aulochromes built by the inventor, or rather a replica built by the individuals who displayed it. If it is determined to be the real instrument pictured in the free images, then I'll be in full favour of deleting the image in question and replacing it. Otherwise, I would recommend keeping the existing image as it was found on the inventor's website, which confirms it to be an accurate depiction or the real instrument. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the images I linked above are non-free. I just included them to demonstrate that the aulochrome has had some public showing. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 13:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have to think that as the image in question came with confirmation of the authenticity of the instrument depicted, and because we also can't confirm that a true (inventor-built) Aulophone was ever publicly displayed, keeping this image would be the simplest solution. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2024 (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:Gee Jon NSP mug shot.gif

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mugshot was possibly taken between 1921 and 1924, but there are other informations can may this file in public domain like :

The file was published before 1963 but the copyright was not renewed.
The file was publisher before 1977 without copyright notice.
The file was published before March 1, 1989 without copyright notice and not renewed.
The file was published prior January 1, 1929.

There are also a duplicated file on Commons, see here Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Since this image may be under copyright (and was uploaded on the grounds of fair-use), but is redundant to a duplicate version on Commons, it meets criterion WP:F8 for WP:SPEEDY. Consequently, the Commons version should probably be marked for deletion as well, since that platform does not allow fair-use (while their version of this image was uploaded as PD, that status can't be confirmed, so it should be assumed that the image is under copyright). -- Fhsig13 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhsig13 I am like 99% sure that image is PD, but I'll look into its history to see if it was published back then, in that way it can be confirmed. But yeah it's duplicated on commons so delete the one here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, I believe I have found the image in this 1924 newspaper (requires WP:TWL or subscription). Slightly poor quality but a quite likely match in my opinion. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Three Sixty yep, that just seems like a lower quality version of this one. Variations in quality aside, still counts as publishing. So the commons one is good. (I will fix the incorrect license though) PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also good lord there has to be a version of this image that isn't a 225 × 130 gif PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done File:Gee Jon mugshot (cropped).jpg PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, @PARAKANYAA. I think now that a PD version of the image in question has been uploaded to Commons, the original .gif version should be speedy deleted as F8, since as a result, it is no longer needed and is otherwise destined to be orphaned. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2024 (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:Tata IPL Logo.webp

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 G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic logo being used in specific season articles in violation of WP:GETTY point 14. As it's not the logo for the season specifically, it also fails WP:NFCC#8 Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from all uses per nom. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and @Three Sixty, the image fails the above-named WP:NFCC criterion as well as WP:GETTY point 14. The image should be removed from all uses, beyond a generic article about league. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Speedy Deletion per G7–Author requests deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:32, 13 March 2024 (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:Edward policy 2023.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 ⚡ 01:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Policy is still alive and active in the public arena. Per WP:FREER, Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. A freely licensed image definitely could be created. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; NFUR on the description page does not make any sense either. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 22:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and @Three Sixty, the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as the individual pictured is still alive, and so a free equivalent could easily be taken, if one does not already exist. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2024 (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:NativeTexanTexPlate.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 ⚡ 01:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

These license plates were all recently uploaded by Brian.S.W (talk · contribs). Their description pages state that they are public domain because they were made by the U.S. federal government. However, this is not the case. Based on the source info, they appear to have been created by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and/or various private entities. According to §1001.007 of the Texas Transportation Code (see page 3141 of this PDF):

The department may:
...apply for, register, secure, hold, and protect under the laws of the United States...copyright...or other evidence of protection or exclusivity issued in or for an idea, publication, or other original innovation fixed in a tangible medium, including:
...a logo...
...a service mark...
...a graphic design...
...an audiovisual work...

I am not a lawyer, but Copyright at Harvard Library confirms that "Intellectual property of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles" is "Copyrightable by statute". Additionally, the artwork on the plates is likely copyrighted by private artists who have not released their work under a free license.

Since, to the best of my knowledge, the Texas DMV has not explicitly released the license plates under a free license, I recommend deletion of these files; non-free use would be excessive.

There are other files like this uploaded by the same user, but I've limited the scope of this nomination to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Thanks. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note that I haven't yet tagged all the files; I am working on it. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)~~ All tagged. Feel free to tag any I missed. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 22:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete All: As these images are eligible for copyright, they should be not be kept. ~~these images will all meet criterion WP:F3 for WP:SPEEDY, since their licensing as PD will become improper once their copyright status has been confirmed.~~ -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Works by U.S. state government other than "edicts" (laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, etc.) are eligible for copyright if allowed by state law. Note that WP:F3 does not apply. (Basically, it is for when the image is uploaded under a license that is not allowed on Wikipedia, not for when the license is contested.) SilverLocust 💬 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Locust Thank you for correcting me, in regards to the speedy-deletion criteria. In response to that, I have amended my vote above. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2024 (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.