Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

File:Hangul Cia-Cia primer.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, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not low resolution, not contextually significant, can be recreated in a free format — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cannot be recreated: the whole point is to show a textbook using this script. A hand-drawn copy would not do that. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The script is not copyrighted, we could create our own based on what is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The script is not copyrighted, thus this could be recreated. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:53, 22 December 2012 (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:Playtex living girdle ad.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file doesn't seem to meet the guideline for contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 07:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image illustrates the advertizing campaign discussed in the text. Mangoe (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mangoe. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as uploader It's an immensely historically significant ad that appears to be a significant portion of the company's heritage, though I'm not sure this comes across in the article itself. CorporateM (Talk) 13:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image still needs a better fair use rationale before this can be closed. Chick Bowen 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better how? It seems adequate to me. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to commons as public domain image. Published before 1977 in the USA without a 'proper' copyright notice makes it public domain. Most scans of ads there are accepted if they don't show a copyright notice. I don't think I have ever seen one rejected. commons/pump/copyright could explain it better than I.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the full ad there is a clear copyright notice in the lower right-hand corner. Chick Bowen 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2013 (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:Odwyerprsawitchhunt.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, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file depicting a living person in a disparaging manner - WP:BLP concerns Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 07:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

probably delete This was removed from Public Relations Society of America per Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive164#Question and seems unlikely ever to be used. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader I felt the image portrayed an important POV (not a POV I hold personally mind you), but it was deleted as basically being an editorial cartoon. Since it seems we will unlikely make use of it in any article (it is heavily POV loaded) we might as well delete it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:03, 26 December 2012 (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:WeFoundAGoldmine.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, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in critical commentary, contents easily described in words, not essential for understanding anything in the text. Generic boilerplate FUR. Fails NFCc#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Having re-examined this I would have to agree that this image adds next to nothing to the article. Without the caption it's really impossible to figure out what's going on, and I don't see anything in the image that the caption isn't already telling me. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2012 (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:Shishido surgery.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of whether the pre-surgery image of Joe Shishido is out of copyright. It was taken in 1950s, but no prior publication is found per {{PD-Japan}} and {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, as there is no way that it was created before 1946. Also, the uploader of this image is inactive since 2009.

~~Also, this non-free image is replaceable because there is a recent picture of him as an old man, and the biography proved that he has been active in recent years.~~ George Ho (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Burden of proof is on the uploader. You may wish to change the tag to a speedy Template:No copyright holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...No, the burden is on the webhost of the source. The uploader did what he did out of illustrating the text. Still... image may or may not be free. --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFCC#8, the image serves an encyclopedic purpose that can't be properly conveyed with words alone nor a current photo of the actor. The "pre" face can't be shown with a recent photography, and the change by the surgery is discussed by reliable sources as significant to his career. Diego (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right; the pre-surgery photo may illustrate what words alone cannot convey. The pre-surgery photo could be considered free (or moved to Commons) if proven to be adequately out of copyright in Japan. However, in the USA, under URAA, it may still be copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the image was published with the consent of the copyright holder without a copyright notice before 1989 (and if it was first published in Japan), then it is in the public domain in the United States. On the other hand, if it wasn't published before 1989 with consent from the copyright holder, then it presumably also fails WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. Pre-1989 works that were released first outside U.S. without notice may still be copyrighted, especially if either released in U.S. after 30 days of first overseas publication or unpublished outside source country. URAA protects those that were released first overseas, unless it is subsequently released in the United States within 30 days after first overseas publication. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's not oversimplify. Foreign works which were PD in the source country at the time of the URAA are also PD in the US — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's clarify:
      1. On 10 May 1906, Japan and the United States ratified a bilateral copyright treaty (see Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States). Japanese works published before that date have never been protected by copyright in the United States.
      2. Japanese works published between 10 May 1906 and 31 December 1995 had to follow US copyright formalities (such as notices and renewals) in order to gain copyright protection in the United States. Many non-US publishers didn't know how the formalities worked and/or didn't bother submitting renewals with the US authorities, so lots of works entered the public domain in the United States. If this photo was published in Japan without compliance of US copyright formalities, then it entered the public domain in the United States at some point.
      3. On 1 January 1996, Japanese works regained copyright protection if they were first published in 1921 or later and still protected by copyright in Japan. Works published in 1921 or 1922 later re-entered the public domain in the United States. This photo was no longer protected by copyright in Japan, so it didn't regain copyright protection. However, if it had never lost its copyright protection in the United States, then it is still protected by copyright there.
      4. Unpublished works, regardless of origin, have to comply with the terms in Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished. We don't know if this is unpublished or not. Only publications made with the consent of the copyright holder count.
    - If Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished, Commons:Template:PD-1923 or {{PD-ineligible}} applies, then the work is always in the public domain in the United States. If not, use the steps below:
      1. Has the work been published? Yes: Continue to next step / No: The work is not in the public domain
      2. Was the work in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date? Yes: Continue to next step / No: The work is not in the public domain
      3. Did the source country have copyright relations with the United States on the date of first publication? Yes: Treat it as a US work / No: The work is in the public domain
    - This falls on steps 1 and 3: we don't know if it is unpublished or not (step 1), and we don't know if it has been published without copyright formalities (step 3). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (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.