Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

File:"A Bit of Color, Royal Poinciana" by Dewing Woodward.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for nearly a year; after reading through the ticket, I think it is unlikely permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 03:22, 24 October 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.

File:Calabi-Picker House.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for nearly a year; after reading through the ticket, I think it is unlikely permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 03:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:33, 28 October 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.

File:Daniel (Danny) McFarlane.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for nearly a year; after reading through the ticket, I think it is unlikely permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 03:30, 24 October 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.

File:Emerging Sciences Foundation.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo, no foreseeable use FASTILY 03:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned and with no foreseeable use. ToThAc (talk) 15:03, 30 October 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.

File:Govy-artist.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as OTRS permission insufficient for nearly a year; after reading through the ticket, I think it is unlikely permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 03:33, 24 October 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.

File:Peggy Fleming Doll.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:COM:TOYS, dolls and other toys, etc. are considered to be protected by copyright in the United States unless it can be clearly shown that they are "in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy". In this case, the uploader can release the photograph under a free license, but the copyright status of the doll needs to be taken intp account. According to Peggy Flemming#Life and career, the doll was created by The Franklin Mint in 1988 which almost certainly means the doll is not old enough to be ineligible for copyright because of its age. So, the copyright of the doll is assumed to be held by The Franklin Mint unless in can clearly be show otherwise. Treating the doll as WP:NFC#non-free content might possibly be an option if the image was used as the primary means of identification in a stand-laone article about the doll itself, but I don't see how the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is justified given the decorative way the file is being used in the Flemming article. Suggest delete if the doll imagery itself cannot clearly be shown to be in the public domain or released under a free license compatible with WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 24 October 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.

File:Priyam poster.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: Relicense to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be uploader's own work. Uploader has history of such problems. David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicensed to non-free video cover and added a fairuse. Discussion should be good for closure. Salavat (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For some reason the uploader has started another FFD discussion about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 26#File:Priyam poster.jpg. I think this was just a good-faith mistake made by someone who might not be familiar with how FFD discussions work. Perhaps someone can combine the discussions together since two ongoing FFD discussions about the same file are not really needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The other discussion is about a non-existing JPG file, so the discussion was automatically closed by a bot. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 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.

File:123 DVD Cover.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: Relicense to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not uploader's own work. Presumably scan of published work. David Biddulph (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicensed to non-free video cover and added a fairuse. Discussion should be good for closure. Salavat (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For some reason the uploader has started another FFD discussion about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 26#File:123 DVD Cover.png. I think this was just a good-faith mistake made by someone who might not be familiar with how FFD discussions work. Perhaps someone can combine the discussions together since two ongoing FFD discussions about the same file are not really needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only does the uploader not understand how FFS discussions work, but he also does not understand how copyright works. At the discussion noted above he says "I bought a DVD for this movie and i scanned that DVD cover.So,I'm the copyright holder". I have tried to explain, but he has taken no notice of numerous previous warnings about copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments transferred across from incorrectly created 26 October discussion:
- It was a DVD Cover of this movie and this image was widely used.I bought a DVD for this movie and i scanned that DVD cover.So,I'm the copyright holder Arul selvan (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arul selvan: You need to understand that scanning the DVD cover does NOT make you the copyright holder. If you continue to violate copyright you are liable to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:50, 28 October 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.

File:Sokkathangam vcd.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: Relicense to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not uploader's own work. Presumably scan of published work. David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relicensed to non-free video cover and added a fairuse. Discussion should be good for closure. Salavat (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For some reason the uploader has started another FFD discussion about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 26#File:Sokkathangam vcd.jpeg. I think this was just a good-faith mistake made by someone who might not be familiar with how FFD discussions work. Perhaps someone can combine the discussions together since two ongoing FFD discussions about the same file are not really needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Added in below and closed the discussion from 26 October. Salavat (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from uploader: It was a vcd cover of that movie and this image is widely used in other related things to this movie eg: An Audio cover and It was the model image.So,It will not come under already published Arul selvan (talk) 15:12, 26 October 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.

File:Community Service Award.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medal created by the government of an unidentified country. No evidence that this government's medals are in the public domain. Also no evidence that the photo of the medal is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source the medal is from the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, a United States federal program sponsored by the United States Armed Forces. So it is possible it would fall under the public domain being either licensed as {{PD-USGov-Military-Award}} or a similar federal government public domain license.Salavat (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That solves the copyright status of the medal, then. Per c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, we also need permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 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.

File:Summer Camp Participation Award.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medal created by the government of an unidentified country. No evidence that this government's medals are in the public domain. Also no evidence that the photo of the medal is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source the medal is from the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, a United States federal program sponsored by the United States Armed Forces. So it is possible it would fall under the public domain being either licensed as {{PD-USGov-Military-Award}} or a similar federal government public domain license. Salavat (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That solves the copyright status of the medal, then. Per c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, we also need permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 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.