Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13

File:Nationwide Insurance.svg

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: PD-textlogo, transfer to Commons czar 09:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP objected to this being moved to Commons, understood to be over trademark concerns, The logo is mostly text and not (for a US originated) logo, considered to be above Threshold of Originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Ammended Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The relevant revison being https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nationwide_Insurance.svg&oldid=754421731

Because of the concern they expressed, I've reverted the file description page to the "non-free" version it had before another contributor changed the license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concern raised was that it is a 'mark' (meaning a trademark) not that it is copyrighted. Trademarks that are not copyrighted can be uploaded to Commons, and this logo seems (IMO) to be well below the threshold of originality in the US. The {{trademark}} template can be applied on Commons. Revent^talk 00:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I linked the relevant revision, and from what the IP says in it, it's not clear if they mean copyrights or trademark rights. I did what I felt was reasonable in reverting to "non-free-use".Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, this is clearly PD-textlogo. But also trademarked, most likely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 21 December 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:Dominick's Logo.svg

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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 14#File:Dominick's_Logo.svg}}

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:Myfontslogo.svg

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 ⚡ 07:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Refferal on TOO grounds, as the text here is highly stylized. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:10, 13 December 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:Holiday Inn Logo.svg

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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 14#File:Holiday_Inn_Logo.svg}}

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:Dick Clark Architecture Logo.svg

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 ⚡ 07:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Referral on threshold of originality grounds, stylised d c combination. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:50, 13 December 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:ErvWilson.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. OTRS verification required. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential license laundering, missing evidence of permission. Uploader claims PD-self with attribution to "Kraig Grady", but uploader's name is stated to be "Carl Lumma" on their user page. FASTILY 02:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Carl Lumma, editing here since 2005 (and earlier). I'm helping Kraig with this since he's not a technical person. beefman (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

send documented permission (from their official email account) to OTRS as documentation of their permission. Suggest either one more relist or just tagging this file as OTRS needed. czar 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

To what e-mail address should he send it? beefman (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beefman: [email protected]

Remember that the image must be included as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 16 January 2017 (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.

Uploads of 2D Art

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 -FASTILY 09:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of 2D art of which the copyright status of the art isn't clear. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:48, 13 December 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:Koda Kumi - real Emotion PV02.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: inadequate fair use rationale—WP:NFCC#8: needs contextual significance czar 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be used for identification, it's actual use is decorative. Whpq (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not decorative. Used as a visual to show readers how the music video was filmed.Xenobia4 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 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:Koda Kumi - real Emotion PV01.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: inadequate fair use rationale—WP:NFCC#8: needs contextual significance with references czar 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be used for identification, it's actual use is decorative. Whpq (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not decorative. Used as a visual to show readers how the music video was filmed.Xenobia4 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 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:John Paul Ruttan.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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image description claims this is a self-portrait of John Paul Ruttan, we would need OTRS confirmation that the uploader is indeed the actor. I judge that unlikely with the EXIF data including a user comments field value of "screenshot". Whpq (talk) 03:10, 13 December 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:Koda Kumi - Trust Your Love ~PV01.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: inadequate fair use rationale—WP:NFCC#8: needs contextual significance with references czar 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used decoratively. Fails

WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Used to show the fashion trends during the early 2000s, showing similarities between North America and Japan.Xenobia4 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 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:Gold 1929.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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 14#File:Gold_1929.jpg}}

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:TSGunits 123.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, considering copyright issues with uploader's other files—can be restored upon proof of original authorship czar 09:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leobruce02 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@
Leobruce02, Verbcatcher, Godsy, and SmokeyJoe: Transferred to here (along with discussion made there) from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Was tagged for speedy-delete as a copy of http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Officer-training/1400003723054/1400003723054 , but its description says "own work" by
User talk:Leobruce02. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This image is also at this newspaper website: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hundreds-met-police-officers-left-9007177

The same uploader has contributed other images whose copyright status is questionable, including two that are copyrighted images on Flickr. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He may have taken those images and uploaded them to Wikipedia and also to Flickr. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I believe files for discussion is the appropriate venue for this discussion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum, go to
WP:FfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (now transferred as asked)[reply
]

Thanks. I see an image uploaded by the photographer, under a suitable licence, and used Territorial Support Group. I am not sure it is a good photograph, or serving a useful purpose, but what is your reason for seeking deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Verbcatcher tagged it for speedy deletion. I came across the speedy deletion listing and thought that the deletion request better be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Verbcatcher tagged it with "tag for speedy deletion Image is also here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hundreds-met-police-officers-left-9007177" {{db-f9|url=http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Officer-training/1400003723054/1400003723054}}. I would guess that Verbcatcher assumed the uploader copied it from the newspaper, but it is very plausible that the uploader uploaded the same image, and that everything is OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Verbcatcher, are there other images you can link to that would appear to not be taken by the same photographer, but uploaded by the same person? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the image was copied from the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) web page [1]. If you click on "View actual size" you get an image size (1175×802) that matches the image size we have. If you click on the "website information" link you get here [2]
, where it says "All material on this site is subject to copyright." The MPS has claimed copyright, so we should delete the image.

It is possible that the uploader was the photographer, but image is of riot police, either at a public disturbance or in training, and the viewpoint suggests that it was almost certainly taken by a police-authorised photographer, probably one working for the Police.

Two of the other photos from the same uploader that I nominated (now deleted) were the same as these images on Flickr: [3], [4] They were uploaded there by Flickr user "Chris' 999 Pics". This could be the same person as our "Leobruce02", but there is nothing in the user names to suggest this. I have nominated this uploader's File:Essex Police Response Vehicle.jpg for discussion, but I haven't found this online. Two of this uploader's other images are police and fire service logos, with questionable claims for copyright ownership: File:Essex Police Logo.png and File:ECFRS logo.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to ask for evidence of copyright ownership, and to delete if it isn't provided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my opinion is that likely Leobruce02 is a police photographer and took the images with a camera and then uploaded them to Wikipedia and Flickr and the police website. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but there is a clear copyright notice on the Metropolitan Police website that applies to the image.[5] Verbcatcher (talk) 20:11, 13 December 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:Rose City Transit 502 in 1961.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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queried as to self license, and the uploader removed the source given. Simple question time, Who actually took the original photo?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 13 December 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:Ayres of Swinister and the Houb, Shetland - 1902 O.S map.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

1902 OS map would have expired by now ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 13 December 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:General Qamar Jawed Bajwa.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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need non-free images. we already have some CC-by SA photos on commons. commons:Category:Qamar_Javed_Bajwa Saqib (talk) 19:43, 13 December 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:Cleveland Indians crying meme.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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic CutOffTies (talk) 22:30, 13 December 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:Bobby Williams after Greece Ridge Championship.jpeg

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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic - no apparent connection to notable subject CutOffTies (talk) 22:36, 13 December 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:3-1 Cleveland Indians meme.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 Wikiacc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic CutOffTies (talk) 22:36, 13 December 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.