Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

File:Italian Colonial Empire.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 ⚡ 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. House Blaster^talk 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (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:Bodycotelogo.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 ⚡ 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version File:Bodycote logo.svg. ✗plicit 00:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2022 (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:Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg and File:Irish slaves myth Breaker Boys meme.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: No consensus. Noting for the record that I do see weak consensus for keeping only one file, but it's not clear which one should be kept. -FASTILY 04:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motivation to use memes in

WP:NFCCP

, namely:

3a: Even if we decide to keep one of these, we definitely don't need two. They're both making the same point.
4: Not sufficiently proven. One is cited to an article that uses it as an example to criticize this myth (with no attribution on their part besides a Whisper watermark). The other is cited to a broken link that was previously just the top-level domain for a blog. Neither provides any information about the creators or copyright holders. This is doubly a concern for the first one, which is also a derivative work of a presumably non-free image.
8: You can easily get the idea of memes like this across by simply quoting or even paraphrasing their text.
10a: None of this information is given, just links to other secondary usages by non-copyright-holders.

I will also point out that the first image was edited by the uploader to remove the attribution to Whisper that was present in the source he took it from. I'm not sure if this has fair use implications or not, but it certainly doesn't seem like it helps, and it also created an artifact on the image. I recommend deleting both, but if we do decide to keep one, I would suggest it be the second one. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He? Ahem. Anyway. I didn't crop anything to my knowledge. Perhaps when I screen grabbed it? But I can see I recycled my fair use template and incorrectly credited the source of Irish Slaves Myth.jpeg to an art website showerofkunst. It should be from the Southern Poverty Law Center. So if that file has to go for whatever legal reasons you have so be it, however it illustrates the article perfectly and quickly. A picture is worth a thousand words. In regards to the second file 1-ykD13vyoRxi BYM4 pLqLQ.jpeg it is again worth a thousand words, but is an excellent example of how a well known documentary photograph was manipulated and misrepresented to prove something false. This source was, as mentioned, an art website which republished this article with Liam Hogan's permission as it dealt with the misuse of visual information. That same article is available from other sources if you do some digging. However the point of needing these images is being well founded in the article, it is in fact what the article is 90% about and mainly what Liam Hogan worked on for several years. He and his work is also the main source for the article. This should not be downplayed as it refers to the dangers of misinformation in the age of social media. In regards to authorship... Memes don't have authors. That's what makes them memes. They circulate and get manipulated. Strongly in favour of keeping 1-ykD13vyoRxi BYM4 pLqLQ.jpeg alongside the Lewis Hine photo. In favour of keeping the Southern Poverty Law image. Both raise the level of understanding, and do so efficiently and quickly to a viewer, and both identify the primary content of the article in a direct and clear way. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wrongly assumed about the cropping - I was basing that on the description calling it a "modified meme" and the ACLU source still having the watermark.

I agree that the article is a little stronger with the memes than without, but that simply isn't as important as our legal obligations. Legally speaking, it is absolutely not true that memes "don't have authors" - the same rules apply to them as to any other creative works, see Internet_meme#United_States. Liam Hogan's permission is not relevant because he did not create these memes and is not the copyright holder. You're right that they "circulate and get manipulated" and that makes it very hard to track down the original authors and source, but that doesn't change our legal requirement to do so if we use one. If we can't, we simply cannot use the image. This is one of many reasons you don't see a lot of memes on Wikipedia, and when you do (like at Pepe the Frog), it is with attribution to its original creator. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I said if it is a legal matter, and one must go I think the top Southern Poverty one should be removed. It seemed like you agreed to that too. Just FYI, Pepe the Frog is not a meme, it is a cartoon by Matt Furie. It then got memed. Snoopy or Bart Simpson have been as well. Which does happen, but there is a very clear source. My point about the authorship of memes is badly worded. What I mean is that memes do not normally have known or identifiable authors. Which is sort of the point of them... that one can make a comment and just release it into the world anonymously. Sometimes they take off. So specifically with these, since they weren't stolen or borrowed from an identifiable source, and we don't know who made them, how can they be protected? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this, but unfortunately I'm fairly sure both must go. Our policy is clear that you cannot use non-free images unless you can meet all 10 of these criteria. As you point out, it's simply not possible to meet some of them - including identification of the source of the original copyrighted material - for memes like this. That does not mean we just get to ignore those requirements in those cases, it means we are not permitted to use such images at all. You're right that Pepe the Frog wasn't a great example, image macro is a better one - you'll notice that the two example memes there were created by (and attributed to) Wikipedia users out of public domain images. It would be better to use "real" ones from "in the wild," but we can't, for these same reasons. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, re-reading

WP:NFCCP I think they do meet all 10, it would just be a matter of removing one of them and updating the image description to be sure to be sure. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete ~~both images unfortunately~~ the Confederate battle flag image. Even with captions denouncing the image, showing a meme in front of a
Confederate battle flag neither improves understanding of what the myth is about nor is contextually significant to the debunked or rejected myth. Furthermore, the flag image itself has already spread misinformation, and I don't think any caption can help much. ~~I can say the same about a meme shamelessly using the Breaker Boys image as a background.~~ When I read "false infomation", most readers will be able to grasp that concept without the meme images. Why would deleting a meme image strongly impact contextual understanding of the topic? ~~BTW, if both memes go, then the Breaker Boys image must be also removed from the article.~~ George Ho (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC); amended, 04:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I think we should keep the original Breaker Boys image even if we delete the memes. It's public domain and encyclopedically relevant as a common piece of source material for these memes (something our sources like [1] and [2] confirm). We'd just have to edit the caption. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the stand-alone Breaker Boys image must be kept in the article, then I shall favor keeping the non-free derivative work of the original Breaker Boys. Using easily-editable captions of the original Breaker Boys image alone still wouldn't be the same without the meme derivative IMHO. George Ho (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. It's both the original and the meme derivative or neither. Any other compromise is 'neither here nor there'. Disagree with comment about somehow promoting meme misinformation, as that just sounds like censorship. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's appropriate to use in any given article, but as far as licensing goes, a blue filter and adding the caption "White Irish slaves were treated worse than any other race in the US. When was the last time you heard an Irishman bitching how the world owes them a living?" does not a US copyright make, I think, so this could be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or {{PD-ineligible}} if it's from the US. @Clindberg: what would you say? You know of any cases with similar complexity where US copyright was or wasn't awarded? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The regulations say names, titles, slogans, and short phrases are not copyrightable, but that is a couple of sentences which is beyond that, and it gets much murkier at that point. Sentences which simply repeat information probably won't, but something like that is squarely in a gray area, and probably the darker side. The photos underlying each would also be copyrightable, though maybe one of them has expired, if the photo is very old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The images in question are both not protected. One is Breaker Boys from 1911, the other the Confederate battle flag. The memes themselves don't constitute derivative work then and do not have protections. The fact is the article is about these memes spreading misinformation (child labour in 1911 being portrayed as Irish slaves from (lol before photography) in presumably the 18th century). It is an excellent and concrete example of the article's contents and, while the description should be improved (hey I'm still learning how to do things better everyday, so apologies), it vastly improves the article in an encyclopedic way. Same for the Confederate image, but if there is a limit to these images (even though that is the subject of most of the article and is published on same topic in reliable outside sources) then that is that. I think they work well together, which is why I uploaded them and included them in an article I think is important. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate flag design obviously is not copyrighted, but that looks like a particular photo of a wrinkled flag with many different shaded areas, meaning it's a photo of a not-entirely-2D object and likely copyrightable. Or if not a photo, those shaded areas are artwork and look to be copyrightable. If the other is a 1911 U.S. photo, then yes that part is fine. I was just commenting on the copyright aspects; fair use is an entirely different question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2022 (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:Super Mario Odyssey PS4 boxart.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

G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Rjsb0191 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Also, the previous version(s) of this file are non-free and are no longer being used in articles. Therefore, both the previous and current revisions fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria and have no reason to retain they are given. So, both of them will be deleted on March 19, 2022. But I want to delete it as early as now, since I uploaded a opposite version of the file. Thank you.

talk) 05:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@I am Rjsb0192: as the uploader and only significant editor you could have just tagged the file with {{db-g7}}. That would have sorted it out with a speedy deletion. Salavat (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2022 (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:Hpu-school-concertband.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 ⚡ 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable. Small and low res, doubtful own work. see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_9#File:Hpu-school-marchingband.jpg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2022 (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:Hpu-school-woft.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 ⚡ 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable. Small and low res, doubtful own work. see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_9#File:Hpu-school-marchingband.jpg --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2022 (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:Ipod touch 2gen.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 ⚡ 01:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shows copyrighted contents. Individual icons are not likely to be considered de minimis because the picture was specifically taken to illustrate the OS. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (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:IPod touch with software upgrade and web clips.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 ⚡ 01:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shows copyrighted contents. Individual icons are not likely to be considered de minimis because the picture was specifically taken to illustrate the OS. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (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:Great expectations1917.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 ⚡ 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, a 1917 photo would be potentially in the public domain and eligible for Commons transfer. However, I'm uncertain about its first publication (archive, source). If unpublished until "after 2002", the photo's copyright would last 120 years after creation, i.e. 2038. Otherwise, if between 1989 and 2002, more likely the same or maybe 31 December 2047. Furthermore, a free poster of Great Expectations (1917 film) is used. Well.... I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change licensing since this looks like a screenshot and not a photo used to advertise the film and would fall into public domain. With the film being lost, I guess this could not be verified to be a screenshot and then could be Deleted for not passing
WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (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:Forfru hires.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 ⚡ 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of a woman with a wooden stick or a wooden pole not

WP:FILMPOSTERS nor template:infobox film has encouraged using a screenshot that isn't a title card. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I forgot to mention

WP:FILMNFI, which still doesn't mention screenshots that don't display title card (i.e. intertitle). George Ho (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2022 (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.