August 23
File:South Sudan stamps on cover used Juba 26 August 2011.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: Crop to show only stamps. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:South Sudan stamps on cover used Juba 26 August 2011.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
should be reduced/cropped, otherwise fails WP:NFCC#3b. If the stamps are important, then they can be cropped out into their own non-free image. Excluding the package to/from area would not be change a reader's understanding of this image. FASTILY 04:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are some stamps in the Postage stamps and postal history of South Sudan page that purport to be CC or PD, but I don't see any exception in Commons:Template:PD-Sudan for governmental works. So probably having some small number of cropped, reduced in size, stamps used under a claim of fair use would be fine. From an editorial standpoint, showing a First day cover that doesn't actually say "First Day of Issue", doesn't have an image on the left, and is mostly just a blank envelope, isn't particularly beneficial to anyone. -- B ( talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- A tight crop on the stamps would be fine. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Fig. 30 Medieval buildings and property development in the area of Cheapside.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. For violating WP:NFCC#1. Regarding the question about original research, there is some allowance for OR in images c.f WP:OI Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Fig. 30 Medieval buildings and property development in the area of Cheapside.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
map, could be redrawn and freely licensed, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 04:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The map is modern (of an historical site). Wouldn't re-drawing it to a sufficient level of detail breach the copyright of the original cartographer?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
Philafrenzy: In Mason v. Montgomery Data, the court ruled that if the author put editorial discretion into what elements to show, selection of source material, etc, then those maps are copyrightable, but if it's something that is purely fact-based geography (e.g. a map showing county borders in Texas), then it is not subject to copyright. So the underlying facts of the map could be represented on an original work and that would not violate copyright. --
B (
talk) 20:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would have thought they have used editorial discretion as it combines a Roman street and the more modern Russia Row and Milk Street. I don't think those streets existed contemporaneously with the Roman street so it combines two time periods into one work. It also shows the pits dug by the archaeologists and other fine detail that suggests they were quite selective.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 21:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is that this map could be redrawn and released under a free license, hence the
WP:NFCC#1 violation -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The authors combined ancient roads, medieval roads, and the pits from modern archaeological excavations to create a new copyrightable work as indicated by B. If we copy their map we infringe the copyright that they created by using their editorial judgement as to what elements to include in the map.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 08:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- But we could use editorial judgment to put different elements in there. The underlying facts aren't copyrightable. --
B (
talk) 12:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't it then become original research? What is the basis for us substituting our judgement for that of a reliable secondary source?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- We exercise editorial judgment about what elements to include in every single article on Wikipedia. There are maybe ten maps in Texas and none of them shows the location of Austin. Why? Because an editorial decision was made by whoever uploaded those maps not to include the location of Austin. Or of the various McDonald's locations in Texas. Or plenty of other pieces of information. -- B ( talk) 13:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't it then become original research? What is the basis for us substituting our judgement for that of a reliable secondary source?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- But we could use editorial judgment to put different elements in there. The underlying facts aren't copyrightable. --
B (
talk) 12:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The authors combined ancient roads, medieval roads, and the pits from modern archaeological excavations to create a new copyrightable work as indicated by B. If we copy their map we infringe the copyright that they created by using their editorial judgement as to what elements to include in the map.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 08:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is that this map could be redrawn and released under a free license, hence the
WP:NFCC#1 violation -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would have thought they have used editorial discretion as it combines a Roman street and the more modern Russia Row and Milk Street. I don't think those streets existed contemporaneously with the Roman street so it combines two time periods into one work. It also shows the pits dug by the archaeologists and other fine detail that suggests they were quite selective.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 21:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
Philafrenzy: In Mason v. Montgomery Data, the court ruled that if the author put editorial discretion into what elements to show, selection of source material, etc, then those maps are copyrightable, but if it's something that is purely fact-based geography (e.g. a map showing county borders in Texas), then it is not subject to copyright. So the underlying facts of the map could be represented on an original work and that would not violate copyright. --
B (
talk) 20:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - The purpose of this map as stated in the non-free usage rationale is "Show position of Roman road in relation to Russia Row". The position of the Roman road can be done by overlaying its position on top of one of many freely licensed maps. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Exeter hip stem.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: deleted. There are plenty of routes available for obtaining a freely licensed one that don't involve grave robbing or x-rays. You could contact a medical practice that uses them, contact the manufacturer, maybe find one in a museum, etc. The whole point of the fair use criterion is that if we just declare, "I didn't find a free image in five minutes of googling", and upload something we found on the internet, then nobody anywhere ever will be incentivized to come up with a free image. -- B ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was humour B. Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Exeter hip stem.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
free photo could be taken of objects that still exist, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 04:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- As they are probably in people's bodies it might need to be an x-ray Fastily.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, so you agree with me that creating a free version is possible. But I highly doubt X-rays will be required, since this hip appears to be a popular model (and still in use today) -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please clarify what you propose, sifting through the remains of a cremation or grave-robbing? P.S. Let me know if you wish to borrow a shovel if the latter. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, so you agree with me that creating a free version is possible. But I highly doubt X-rays will be required, since this hip appears to be a popular model (and still in use today) -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.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: Resolved - FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
should be non-free reduced; claim that "An art work needs to be legible." by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fastily, the point I am making is that the image is not decoration. It needs to be high enough so that if a reader clicks on it to inspect it, they get a reasonable level of detail and not a blur. I know we can't have a high resolution version but the Bot often reduces them to far to make them of any practical use to the reader. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep "should be non-free reduced" (which I have just done). Exactly, reduced != deleted. Please don't call other editors' opinions "nonsense". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.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: relisted on 2018 August 31. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg ( 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:Marks & Spencer 1969 pink nightdress.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Marks & Spencer 1969 pink nightdress.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
free photo could be taken, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 05:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a piece of evidence in a murder case. Free photo cannot be taken. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Not the actual clothing that was worn, just one that was similar to it, per description. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my mistake, it's not the actual one.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. When it is deleted, remember that it is a photograph put out by the police to try to solve a murder. A woman that had a child and was decapitated. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my mistake, it's not the actual one.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:NSApolygraphvideo.webm
- 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: Crop out the non-free content. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:NSApolygraphvideo.webm ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhisperToMe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This has been up for reduction for a while - there are two potential issues with this file. (1) The overall size, which could be fixed. (2) The length - almost 8 minutes. Audio/Visual files should be short clips, normally with a 30 second maximum length or 10% if shorter. I can't see this working at a 30 second clip, I think the only option is delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: IMO the length should not be an issue because the vast majority of it is PD-US Government. The reason I uploaded it here was because of the Meet the Parents and Simpsons clips, which are copyrighted. The NSA article makes a commentary on this particular video, and I uploaded it as intended, 8 minutes. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Based on my above reasoning WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with a screenshot plus a link to the video (first choice) or Remove the copyrighted material (second choice). If this were a fully-copyrighted music video or something, then most likely we would have a screenshot of some significant piece of it - we wouldn't claim that the entire video is required for the user's understanding of the work. It's no different here - we could either provide a screenshot plus a link to the video or provide the video without the copyrighted pieces. The Simposons shots are not required for the user's understanding of the topic. -- B ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - If the Simpsons and Meet the Parents stuff were removed, it could be re-uploaded on the Wikimedia Commons. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Ofi-1968.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Ofi-1968.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mpatzis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Photo from 1968. No claim of authorship by the uploader. From the lines, it looks like it may be a picture of an image on TV or a display of some sort and absent any sort of claim of authorship, we have no basis for believing that the license is legitimate. It was tagged with the old {{ NoRightsReserved}}, which used to be how people would upload images they just found somewhere because it sounded good. B ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Swing - Seattle - Phinney Dance 2005 b.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Swing - Seattle - Phinney Dance 2005 b.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mattimero ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use B ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Star Left - Seattle - Dancing Fool 2006 .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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Star Left - Seattle - Dancing Fool 2006 .jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mattimero ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use B ( talk) 13:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Myoregonsymbol.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Myoregonsymbol.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dschor ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Poor quality letter O, redundant to File:Oregon Ducks logo.svg B ( talk) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep You cannot copyright a letter; it falls under the
threshold of originality. See
File:ARD logo.svg as the canonical case. "I think it's rubbish" is not a reason per se to delete it.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ Ritchie333: Umm ... the reason for nominating it for deletion is not copyright - it's that it's useless. This isn't WP:PUI. Nobody questions that the O logo is PD-ineligible. -- B ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Garage man in Chicago.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Garage man in Chicago.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, No conceivable encyclopedic use. Description says this is from Ferris Bueller's Day Off so may be a copyrighted source image? B ( talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Metalasia 2010.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Metalasia 2010.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fariz Metal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, uploaded by a banned user with repeated copyright violations, so no reason to believe the license. B ( talk) 16:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:ChrisNiosiHeadshot.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:ChrisNiosiHeadshot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PeanutButterMarshmallowTime ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Lacks sufficient evidence to support asserted license. A screenshot of an email has been provided as evidence. However, the email makes no mention of any licensing. I'm not even sure if a screenshot of an email would be considered valid. Emailled permission to OTRS for confirmation would be preferrable. Whpq ( talk) 17:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The stated permission to upload images to Wikipedia falls far short of an acceptable license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
August 23
File:South Sudan stamps on cover used Juba 26 August 2011.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: Crop to show only stamps. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:South Sudan stamps on cover used Juba 26 August 2011.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
should be reduced/cropped, otherwise fails WP:NFCC#3b. If the stamps are important, then they can be cropped out into their own non-free image. Excluding the package to/from area would not be change a reader's understanding of this image. FASTILY 04:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are some stamps in the Postage stamps and postal history of South Sudan page that purport to be CC or PD, but I don't see any exception in Commons:Template:PD-Sudan for governmental works. So probably having some small number of cropped, reduced in size, stamps used under a claim of fair use would be fine. From an editorial standpoint, showing a First day cover that doesn't actually say "First Day of Issue", doesn't have an image on the left, and is mostly just a blank envelope, isn't particularly beneficial to anyone. -- B ( talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- A tight crop on the stamps would be fine. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Fig. 30 Medieval buildings and property development in the area of Cheapside.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. For violating WP:NFCC#1. Regarding the question about original research, there is some allowance for OR in images c.f WP:OI Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Fig. 30 Medieval buildings and property development in the area of Cheapside.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
map, could be redrawn and freely licensed, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 04:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The map is modern (of an historical site). Wouldn't re-drawing it to a sufficient level of detail breach the copyright of the original cartographer?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
Philafrenzy: In Mason v. Montgomery Data, the court ruled that if the author put editorial discretion into what elements to show, selection of source material, etc, then those maps are copyrightable, but if it's something that is purely fact-based geography (e.g. a map showing county borders in Texas), then it is not subject to copyright. So the underlying facts of the map could be represented on an original work and that would not violate copyright. --
B (
talk) 20:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would have thought they have used editorial discretion as it combines a Roman street and the more modern Russia Row and Milk Street. I don't think those streets existed contemporaneously with the Roman street so it combines two time periods into one work. It also shows the pits dug by the archaeologists and other fine detail that suggests they were quite selective.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 21:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is that this map could be redrawn and released under a free license, hence the
WP:NFCC#1 violation -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The authors combined ancient roads, medieval roads, and the pits from modern archaeological excavations to create a new copyrightable work as indicated by B. If we copy their map we infringe the copyright that they created by using their editorial judgement as to what elements to include in the map.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 08:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- But we could use editorial judgment to put different elements in there. The underlying facts aren't copyrightable. --
B (
talk) 12:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't it then become original research? What is the basis for us substituting our judgement for that of a reliable secondary source?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- We exercise editorial judgment about what elements to include in every single article on Wikipedia. There are maybe ten maps in Texas and none of them shows the location of Austin. Why? Because an editorial decision was made by whoever uploaded those maps not to include the location of Austin. Or of the various McDonald's locations in Texas. Or plenty of other pieces of information. -- B ( talk) 13:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't it then become original research? What is the basis for us substituting our judgement for that of a reliable secondary source?
Philafrenzy (
talk) 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- But we could use editorial judgment to put different elements in there. The underlying facts aren't copyrightable. --
B (
talk) 12:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The authors combined ancient roads, medieval roads, and the pits from modern archaeological excavations to create a new copyrightable work as indicated by B. If we copy their map we infringe the copyright that they created by using their editorial judgement as to what elements to include in the map.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 08:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is that this map could be redrawn and released under a free license, hence the
WP:NFCC#1 violation -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would have thought they have used editorial discretion as it combines a Roman street and the more modern Russia Row and Milk Street. I don't think those streets existed contemporaneously with the Roman street so it combines two time periods into one work. It also shows the pits dug by the archaeologists and other fine detail that suggests they were quite selective.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 21:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
Philafrenzy: In Mason v. Montgomery Data, the court ruled that if the author put editorial discretion into what elements to show, selection of source material, etc, then those maps are copyrightable, but if it's something that is purely fact-based geography (e.g. a map showing county borders in Texas), then it is not subject to copyright. So the underlying facts of the map could be represented on an original work and that would not violate copyright. --
B (
talk) 20:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - The purpose of this map as stated in the non-free usage rationale is "Show position of Roman road in relation to Russia Row". The position of the Roman road can be done by overlaying its position on top of one of many freely licensed maps. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Exeter hip stem.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: deleted. There are plenty of routes available for obtaining a freely licensed one that don't involve grave robbing or x-rays. You could contact a medical practice that uses them, contact the manufacturer, maybe find one in a museum, etc. The whole point of the fair use criterion is that if we just declare, "I didn't find a free image in five minutes of googling", and upload something we found on the internet, then nobody anywhere ever will be incentivized to come up with a free image. -- B ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was humour B. Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Exeter hip stem.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
free photo could be taken of objects that still exist, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 04:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- As they are probably in people's bodies it might need to be an x-ray Fastily.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, so you agree with me that creating a free version is possible. But I highly doubt X-rays will be required, since this hip appears to be a popular model (and still in use today) -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please clarify what you propose, sifting through the remains of a cremation or grave-robbing? P.S. Let me know if you wish to borrow a shovel if the latter. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, so you agree with me that creating a free version is possible. But I highly doubt X-rays will be required, since this hip appears to be a popular model (and still in use today) -
FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.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: Resolved - FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
should be non-free reduced; claim that "An art work needs to be legible." by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fastily, the point I am making is that the image is not decoration. It needs to be high enough so that if a reader clicks on it to inspect it, they get a reasonable level of detail and not a blur. I know we can't have a high resolution version but the Bot often reduces them to far to make them of any practical use to the reader. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep "should be non-free reduced" (which I have just done). Exactly, reduced != deleted. Please don't call other editors' opinions "nonsense". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.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: relisted on 2018 August 31. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.jpg ( 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:Marks & Spencer 1969 pink nightdress.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Marks & Spencer 1969 pink nightdress.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Philafrenzy ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
free photo could be taken, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 05:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a piece of evidence in a murder case. Free photo cannot be taken. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Not the actual clothing that was worn, just one that was similar to it, per description. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my mistake, it's not the actual one.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. When it is deleted, remember that it is a photograph put out by the police to try to solve a murder. A woman that had a child and was decapitated. Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my mistake, it's not the actual one.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:NSApolygraphvideo.webm
- 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: Crop out the non-free content. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:NSApolygraphvideo.webm ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhisperToMe ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This has been up for reduction for a while - there are two potential issues with this file. (1) The overall size, which could be fixed. (2) The length - almost 8 minutes. Audio/Visual files should be short clips, normally with a 30 second maximum length or 10% if shorter. I can't see this working at a 30 second clip, I think the only option is delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: IMO the length should not be an issue because the vast majority of it is PD-US Government. The reason I uploaded it here was because of the Meet the Parents and Simpsons clips, which are copyrighted. The NSA article makes a commentary on this particular video, and I uploaded it as intended, 8 minutes. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Based on my above reasoning WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with a screenshot plus a link to the video (first choice) or Remove the copyrighted material (second choice). If this were a fully-copyrighted music video or something, then most likely we would have a screenshot of some significant piece of it - we wouldn't claim that the entire video is required for the user's understanding of the work. It's no different here - we could either provide a screenshot plus a link to the video or provide the video without the copyrighted pieces. The Simposons shots are not required for the user's understanding of the topic. -- B ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - If the Simpsons and Meet the Parents stuff were removed, it could be re-uploaded on the Wikimedia Commons. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Ofi-1968.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Ofi-1968.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mpatzis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Photo from 1968. No claim of authorship by the uploader. From the lines, it looks like it may be a picture of an image on TV or a display of some sort and absent any sort of claim of authorship, we have no basis for believing that the license is legitimate. It was tagged with the old {{ NoRightsReserved}}, which used to be how people would upload images they just found somewhere because it sounded good. B ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Swing - Seattle - Phinney Dance 2005 b.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Swing - Seattle - Phinney Dance 2005 b.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mattimero ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use B ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Star Left - Seattle - Dancing Fool 2006 .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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Star Left - Seattle - Dancing Fool 2006 .jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mattimero ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use B ( talk) 13:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Myoregonsymbol.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Myoregonsymbol.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dschor ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Poor quality letter O, redundant to File:Oregon Ducks logo.svg B ( talk) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep You cannot copyright a letter; it falls under the
threshold of originality. See
File:ARD logo.svg as the canonical case. "I think it's rubbish" is not a reason per se to delete it.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ Ritchie333: Umm ... the reason for nominating it for deletion is not copyright - it's that it's useless. This isn't WP:PUI. Nobody questions that the O logo is PD-ineligible. -- B ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Garage man in Chicago.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Garage man in Chicago.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Serial Number 54129 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, No conceivable encyclopedic use. Description says this is from Ferris Bueller's Day Off so may be a copyrighted source image? B ( talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Metalasia 2010.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Metalasia 2010.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fariz Metal ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, uploaded by a banned user with repeated copyright violations, so no reason to believe the license. B ( talk) 16:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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:ChrisNiosiHeadshot.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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:ChrisNiosiHeadshot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PeanutButterMarshmallowTime ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Lacks sufficient evidence to support asserted license. A screenshot of an email has been provided as evidence. However, the email makes no mention of any licensing. I'm not even sure if a screenshot of an email would be considered valid. Emailled permission to OTRS for confirmation would be preferrable. Whpq ( talk) 17:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The stated permission to upload images to Wikipedia falls far short of an acceptable license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.