Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

File:Provincial seal of Surigao del Sur, Philippines.png

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: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 10:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file was renamed to stop shadowing a Commons file. In doing so, I discovered that the reason why this image was in use in Surigao del Sur was actually because the template {{PH wikidata|image_seal}} was in use. My assumption is that the template meant to use the Commons file (pulled from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13891), but the local file showed up instead because of the name conflict. As part of the WP:FNC#9 renaming process, I (temporarily?) replaced the template with the this file's name so that the usage wouldn't be broken.

However, that brings up the question: is the file non-free as it is currently tagged? Why is this version non-free when the other version is PD? If it is non-free, we should delete it per WP:NFCC#1 since it's replaceable by the Commons file File:Ph seal surigao del sur.png. If this file is actually PD, however, we can convert it to a PD tag and keep it and let the article editors decide which image they want in the article. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 02:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: There seems to be a difference between how Wikipedia and Commons treats such files. Similar files have been discussed before such as Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 5#File:Logo of the University of the Philippines Diliman.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 22#File:Flag of The President Of The Philippines 1948-1981.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 20#File:Ph seal ifugao.png and there has been some general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Philippine government works and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#Philippine government works - resolving contradiction between Commons and enwiki policy, but nothing appears to have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that English Wikipedia and Commons have interpreted copyright law differently. I assume that one of the interpretations is wrong, but we may need help from an expert on Philippines copyright law in order to figure out what's right and what's wrong. There is no difference in copyright status between the local file and the Commons file (provided that the files really are government works - no sources have been provided), so we should not make any difference between the conditions under which we use the local file and the conditions under which we use the Commons file. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2016 (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:AdrianScarlat picture.png

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 ⚡ 11:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No wiki related picture, only personal picture Kayser Ahmad (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2016 (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:Marvelous Cannabis Leaf billboard.jpg

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 ⚡ 11:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a derivative work of a billboard with no evidence of free-ness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 18 June 2016 (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:In 24 Hours logo.png

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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it may qualify as PD-textlogo for being a just slightly modified text piece. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as uploader): I don't disagree with the proposal, and what I'm about to say doesn't change anything, but just for what its worth, I modified the original logo slightly by recolouring. The original text was white, and I recoloured to black, given it appears on a white background on Wikipedia. I did not change the shapes, text, images, etc. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:29, 18 June 2016 (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:Sinner by Aaron Lewis.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An album cover is unlikely to be freely licensed, and there is no evidence of free licensing other than a direct link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 18 June 2016 (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:Pattinathar 1936 Vintage .jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While commons:Template:PD-India suggests that this image may be PD now (Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2016, works published prior to 1 January 1956 are considered public domain)), it seems like it may run afoul of URAA recopyrighting given that the expiry would be in 1997 most likely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poster is not a work of cinema, but it might be a photograph or a screenshot from a film. Also, you are using the wrong copyright term. You should replace 60 years with 50 years everywhere in the template if the relevant event on which the copyright term is based took place before 1941. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where is that 1941 thing? I can't find it in the law text or template... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in section 2 of "Act 13 of 1992", I think. However, I can't find "Act 13 of 1992" online, so I can't check. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like wikisource:Indian_Copyright_Act_(3rd_Amendment)_1992 is that law. So, if a poster is not a cinematographic work (which seems plausible, a poster is not usually part of the moving images itself) then we'd need the date of death of the creator to know its current copyright status. If it was a screenshot, under the non-amended law the copyright would have expired in 1986 or 1987 (50 years after publication; dunno what day of the year) and the amendment does specify that it does not restore copyright to already expired works, so URAA would not apply there apparently as the copyright would have expired by the time of its enactment.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a screenshot, then it follows the copyright term of the film (50 years after publication of the film). If it's not a screenshot, then it is a photograph, and then the copyright term expired at the same time anyway. Non-photographic posters can be problematic, but that's not the case here. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a film poster usally put out by the (corporate) distributor? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2016 (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:ANZ head office.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source says Courtesy of Contador Harrison photo library and the only website which comes close (the source website itself, http://www.contadorharrison.com/anz-to-roll-out-intelligent-atm-machines/) has no indication of being free, on the contrary: Copyright (c) 2016. All rights reserved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, agreed, this one appears to be copyrighted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2016 (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:Phoenix Marie in AVN expo.jpg

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 F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published on https://www.flickr.com/photos/49283984@N05/15969605906 where it's tagged as "All rights reserved". Further, the information on the user page of the uploader indicates they are probably the subject of the image and not the photographer. It may be work on commission but we'd need proof of that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 18 June 2016 (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:Just Jeans brand logo.jpg

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 10:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This logo looks like it might qualify as PD-USOnly as it's only text with three coloured bars above it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 18 June 2016 (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:Just Group logo.jpg.png

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 10:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it'd qualify as PD-USOnly as just coloured text. It's the logo from an Australian group so not certain it'd be PD there as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 18 June 2016 (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:Hinter-99-RBlissettsmall.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder, needs OTRS confimation. Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description says "I am the artist". Is artist = photographer? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (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:Historic azerbaijan 2.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From http://web.archive.org/web/20060622005229/http://www.euro-caspian.com/permission.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Baku87&action=history it seems they are the site owner at the very least.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 24 June 2016 (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:Iris ter Schiphorst by Christian Lehmann.jpg

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: convert to {{Attribution}}. — ξ ^xplicit 10:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License given isn't PD, It's an "attribution" with notification license. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2016 (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:HomeofBenHana.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 15:02, 18 June 2016 (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:Hotel building.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether the uploader is the copyright holder of the file. Kelly ^hi! 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader wrote |Source = Self-made and |Author = Shannon Brown, which suggests that the uploader, Shannonwbrown, is the photographer. However, the statement in the permission template parameter looks strange. Is this a Wikipedia-only licence, and is the hotel the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2016 (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:Hussainnajafy.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused crop of File:MHN Image122.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 17:06, 18 June 2016 (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:Big Hoodoo Crystal Skull.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused non-free image of the album cover for an album without an article to use it in. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2016 (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:Gracerear.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the production information section of Rear Window to highlight the sentence "Hitchcock used costume designer Edith Head on all of his Paramount films." There is already a free image hosted on Commons from the trailer, File:Rearwindow trailer 2.jpg, that shows Grace Kelly in another Edith Head design thereby failing WP:NFCC#1. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot in question is of better quality than File:Rearwindow trailer 2.jpg. And, besides that, Kelly's chiffon dress is considerably more well-known than her nightdress. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 00:49, 24 June 2016 (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.