The result of the discussion was: Consensus is the image is replaceable by a free image. The thought of most of the participants is that although the image may not be easily replaceable, it is replaceable. Therefore the image fails WP:NFCC#1 and can be replaced. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 11:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett ( talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.
There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.
So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B ( talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Replaceable low quality image...all key content is out-of-focus. Have File:ChijiokeU in 2011.jpg as a substantially higher quality image of the key person; the combination here with another blurred person doesn't seem to have added value. We also have:
which is cropped down to focus on the key individuals if that aspect has value. But I'm actually including it here as FFD nom for the same lack-of-quality/lack-of-value as the original. DMacks ( talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The screenshot is used in the plot section of Skin Trade (film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. 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) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The screenshot is used in the production section of Skin Trade (film), where 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. If the image is to show the two actors in the film, that is already accomplished by the film poster in the infobox thereby failing WP:NFCC#3. Aspects ( talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Consensus is the image is replaceable by a free image. The thought of most of the participants is that although the image may not be easily replaceable, it is replaceable. Therefore the image fails WP:NFCC#1 and can be replaced. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 11:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett ( talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.
There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.
So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B ( talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Replaceable low quality image...all key content is out-of-focus. Have File:ChijiokeU in 2011.jpg as a substantially higher quality image of the key person; the combination here with another blurred person doesn't seem to have added value. We also have:
which is cropped down to focus on the key individuals if that aspect has value. But I'm actually including it here as FFD nom for the same lack-of-quality/lack-of-value as the original. DMacks ( talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The screenshot is used in the plot section of Skin Trade (film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. 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) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The screenshot is used in the production section of Skin Trade (film), where 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. If the image is to show the two actors in the film, that is already accomplished by the film poster in the infobox thereby failing WP:NFCC#3. Aspects ( talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)