Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11

File:Rajkumar in Sri Krishnadevaraya (1970).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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a rather clear violation of our fair-use standards, in any article. Deletion seems necessary. This is a carryover from

talk) 02:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no discussion of the image or the film within the

article where it's used. I don't believe it meets our non-free criteria. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Given that we have a non-free of the actor out of costume/make-up serving for the infobox (good), and that the comparison between the two images shows little difference in the person's appearance (the film costume does not involve excessive makeup/etc.) and that there's no discussion, it definite is a problem to keep this image. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @

talk) 02:43, 11 February 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:Elizabeth Broun.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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file seems to be unfree, since it maybe wasn't technically the work of a government employee. A free image on her article could serve as her portrait if cropped. Leftover from

talk) 04:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The page it links as source says "Photos for News Media Use Only"

Attributed to the Smithsonian with government free use rationale. The Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the U.S. government, but separate from the government's federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

I havent used FFD before so I apologize if this shouldve been a speedy. Savonneux (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language you quote suggests that works of the Smithsonian employees are PD works, but we have no idea whom the photographer is here, if it was a work for hire or not. The language of "news media only" suggests the copyright belongs to the photographer who is not necessarily a US gov't employee and thus this would not be free. And this should be a NFCC#1 if it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Works prepared by officers or employees of the Smithsonian Institution are not considered works of the U.S. government if the author-employee was paid from the Smithsonian trust fund."--Copyright Office Compendium 3rd ed. §313.6(C)(1) RJaguar3 | u | t 02:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, it's probably best to assume that with both the language on the site and this, we aren't looking at a free image here. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (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:2014-hostage-crisis-openstreetmap.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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused png map with an identical vector version available: File:2014-hostage-crisis-openstreetmap.svg FASTILY 09:27, 11 February 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:Max Baer and Max Schmeling.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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See EXIF: "Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS". Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Better yet, see Copyfraud. Then note that Bettman/Corbis only registered a few of its 11 million old press photo collection that Bill Gates bought. Also view the reverse side of this, this, or this one, from the same event, all original without copyrights. The U.S. images rightly belong in the Commons, but that's another story. --Light show (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Aside from the evident NFCC2 failure, this picture was claimed essential to understanding the point that Baer had a Star of David emblem on his boxing trunks. That falls far, far, far short of meeting NFCC#8 requirements -- in fact, it's just about a paradigm of the sort of statement that does not require visual enhancement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. There's no reason to post someone wearing a common clothing accessory, worn in public by everyday folks, and even youngsters. Other than the minor fact that Baer wore his voluntarily, of course. --Light show (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're willing to post that shabby attempt to associate me with Nazi sympathies just because I disagree with you about nonfree image policy pretty much establishes that you're a loathsome little jackass. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:08, 13 February 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:PSE logo.gif

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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

supersede by File:2009 PSE logo.png on Commons. no need to upload the gif version. Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 11:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: You want Wikipedia:Files for discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note - I'm moving the discussion to the correct location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My bad. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 04:35, 14 February 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:Method-crm-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-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This logo doesn't seem original enough to be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 11 February 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:Haley Bonar in 2015.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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged this as replaceable fair use with the rationale, "A living person can be shown with a free image", the uploader is contesting with the rationale "his is the most up to date photo of Haley, thus making it the most relevant and the photographer personally released it for this specific use". Bringing this here for discussion, I wonder if the uploader can get a broader permission statement from the photographer and submit it to OTRS or the photographer's website, if it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 11 February 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:Graphic of Tire Pressure versus Temperature.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 ⚡ 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OB,OR Rhodyman (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that OR is
WP:OR but what is OB, Rhodyman.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I think OB means obscure abbreviation.

talk

)

Delete OB means obsolete and I suppose OR means orphan (see the mass of text at the head of this page). I see this image was replaced by text with this diff and that is why the uploader is saying it should be deleted. I'll go with that. Thincat (talk) 17:59, 17 February 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.