Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 14

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.

File:AltonColeman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lateg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with FBI most wanted Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and apply a FUR. Person was executed. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Image on Commons kept. Delete.. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 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.

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⚡ 05:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asuncion Montage.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bleff (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Top photo was

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur w/ S above. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 17 May 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.

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.

File:Black and Blue Better Call Saul.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FishandChipper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#8, in that a lucite-encased slide rule is not something that needs to be presented from a television episode ; while the scenes to create the prop were described in the episode, its not essential to see this. Masem (t) 14:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block still plays an important role in the episode, beyond simply its construction. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails
  talk) 21:03, 14 May 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.

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.

File:Grove House School.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scope creep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Comment if it wasn't published until after 2003 could it be covered by {{PD-US-unpublished}} in the United States? Doesn't really solve the problem but thought I would suggest it. Salavat (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sent an email to the curator with some of the questions that needed to be answered, but she never got back so back. It is likely it has published more than a few times in the past. I don't have much more information than I did at the original discussion at the help desk. It is dated 1842 and the curator Deborah Hedgecock confirms that in here email. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A ref that its 1842, [1]. I'm looking for book from that period. By W.D. Sparkes who created it in pencil and this is a reproduction. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ All the discussion related to this file up until now has been based on the assumption that it was the original drawing that was uploaded; however, things are now much more complicated if the image turns out to be a reporduction. If it's a slavish reproduction, then perhaps no new copyright was established for the reproduction that is independent of the original; on the other hand, if there were tweaks or other creative things added by the reproducer, then that might be sufficient to generate a new copyirght. That would mean that the date the reproduction was first published would also likely be relevant. Is there any way for you to find out whether this is a "true" reproduction of the original or actually find the original drawing done in pencil? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it would be a clear derivative work. There are dozens of reasons this should simply be labeled PD (pick one and move on). Buffs (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a clear derivative work, then I believe it would be eligible for its own copyright separate from the original drawing since that is typically how

    WP:Derivative works are defined under copyright law (at least US copyright law). A derivative work based on an older PD work could still be eligible for copyright protection and would need to be treated as non-free content if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Comment I found a shop that selling the print, that states its by W.D. Sparkes in 1842. Several documents on Quaker schools also state that its from 1842, but no books from that time unfortunately. I have not heard back from Deborah Hedgecock, the curator.I can't add much more on it. I think it's from 1842. scope_creep^Talk
  • The last comment you made in the discussion about this file at the Help Desk was I'll have a chat at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. A few weeks have passed since then, but I have yet to see any thread about this over at COM:VPC; so, I've gone ahead and started c:COM:VPC#1842 drawing of UK school to see whether anyone over at Commons can help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Marchjuly: It was one many things that I need/needed to do then/now. It was on my todo list. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Clindberg gave quite a thorough response to my query about this at COM:VPC. Clindberg is quite experienced when it comes to copyright matters on Commons so please take a look at what he posted. I'm sure he will be happy to answer any questions you may have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly PD. Pick a new label, fix the image, and move on. Buffs (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to PD according to the image experts at c:COM:VPC#1842 drawing of UK school. I plan to upload the full sized image and put a PD tag on it. So this can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 19:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:F8 after you've uploaded the Commons file since there would no longer be any need for a local version. You can even use the same file name if you want for the Commons file since that's the file the software will use when the file name is invoked and then you won't need to change anything in the article. Just make sure you upload the file in the same jpg file format and that it's the same file. I would also suggest adding the Commons file to the stand-alone article about the school since that seems to be another encyclopedic use for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Marchjuly: Will do. Is there an specific PD template I need to use, that has a name, so I can look for it, or is it just straigh-forward. scope_creep^Talk 04:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should use whatever license they suggest over on Commons. If that license isn't one of the options listed when you upload the file, add it after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see he came back. I never saw it. Well I guess that is closed. @Marchjuly: Thanks for your help. You have been a real gem. I wouldn't have been able to fix without you. This can be closed scope_creep^Talk 05:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking about closing this, but I don't see the image in your contributions to Commons. Could you please do that first? -FASTILY 06:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Fastily: I'll do it later on today or tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 10:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Fastily: Thats it uploaded, to [2]. Please close. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:28, 19 May 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.

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: keep. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Belbury (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

). 

Fair Use image not needed on the page. --evrik ^(talk) 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of the
  talk) 19:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep clearly the subject of the page and the famous special effect. I moved it where it should be. Buffs (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This appears to be an edit war in which evrik is attempting to use the FFD process to win. This was brought to FFD in bad faith, IMHO, and should be speedily closed. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You're making a lot of assumptions there Buffs. Simply put, the FU image doesn't add a lot of context. Lord Belbury seems to love the image, but it is not really needed ... and no, it's not an edit war. --evrik ^(talk) 03:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You gave me a 3RR warning for edits of mine that you alone were reverting, I think that's an edit war. I was only intending to move forward in absence of
  talk) 09:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My giving you a warning on the 3RR was to prevent the escalation of this relatively minor issue into an edit war. Referencing the talk page, well that conversation had stopped but you insisted on adding the image. In any case, the
  Copyright_status_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz will be resolved in 13 years. --evrik ^(talk) 17:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common sense here - the page is about the special effect, having a still of the special effect is essential to the page. It's fair use, and lends detail to the written description of how the effect was made. Agree with Lord Belbury that a re-creation would not give an authentic represenation Jonathan97X (talk) 05:55, 22 May 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.

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.

File:Goldy Goldstein.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MisterCake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

• Delete - the provenance of this photo is unclear. The given source is photobucket which is just an image upload site. Stated to be circa 1925 so it might be public domain but without proper source information, the licensing cant be determined. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To the contrary, If you'll look at when he played football, his time playing football ended in 1926; a quick search of copyrights finds nothing to match either. The original photo is clearly PD. Merely colorizing one portion of it doesn't make it lose that status. Buffs (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is based on date of publicationwhich we don't know. -- Whpq (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the copyright status of

hand colouring is always so clear per c:COM:Colorization. In some cases, there might be an element of creativity involved that could be considered sufficient to establish a separate copyright for the colorized version. In that case, the date of first publication of the colorized could matter. It's not so much a question as to whether the original photo loses its PD status through colorization because it can't. It's more of a question as to whether the colorized version is creative enough to generate a new copyright independent of the original. In this case, it would probably be better to find either an original non-colorized version of the photo and use that if it can be demonstrated it was first published prior to January 1, 1927, since colorization doesn't add much encylopedic context and there're other images already on Commons that can be used for identification purposes. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no element of creativity on this one for colorization. But more importantly, this was a publicity photo for the Florida Gators. There is little doubt it was published before he left school in 1926. As for date of publication, I'm well aware. The fact is I can find no record of a registered copyright for this subject, ergo, such a photo would have had to be registered for copyright during that era. As no known copyright exists, it's PD. Buffs (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, how do you know it was a publicity photo? I'm not terribly worried about copyright here, but how can we know his pants aren't the only fishy thing here? Regardless, I've desaturated the image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stadium in the background is pretty much a dead giveaway. You don't just walk onto the UF field and take pictures (well, certainly not in that day/age). It is ver reminiscent of individual/team photos of that era and, for the most part, only professionals had the gear to take such photos. I like the desaturation changes too. As I stated above, if that photo was to retain copyright, it had to be registered AND they had to pay to maintain that registry. I could find neither in a records check, ergo, it is PD by that standard (not just that it's pre-1927). Buffs (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, my concerns are more like "did they photoshop some modern pants on this guy?", "could it be a face swap?", "has the photo been mirrored?", "how can we know the guy was IDed correctly?", etc. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be that. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Buffs (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On balance, it is far more likely than not that the image is pre-1927 and therefore its copyright is expired. Should be retagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 31 May 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.

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-USonly}} -FASTILY 08:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:5zlotych1925.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kupsztal (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This coin was produced in 1925, which is longer than the 95 years of copyright protection granted under U.S. copyright law. Somehow it is still tagged as "fair use". Eyesnore 22:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 20:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if this is a valid not-vote, but I think we should move this to Commons and speedy delete this under
  talk | contributions) 00:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and relicense to {{PD-USonly}}. While the file is in the public domain in the US, it is not in the public domain in its country of origin per c:COM:CUR Poland, and will never be absent a change in the relevant laws. HouseBlaster^talk 17:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above HB is spot on Buffs (talk) 20:38, 17 May 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.

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.

File:CIE rg Diagram.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Njm7203 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

We should be able to make our own diagram with publicly available information. No need for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relabel This image is a graph of known PD data, ergo, it cannot be copyrighted. It would fall under the principles of template:PD-simple Buffs (talk) 20:36, 17 May 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.