Open main menu

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)
XFD backlog
  May Jun Jul Aug TOTAL
CfD 5 19 46 18 88
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 6 6
FfD 0 1 7 1 9
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status - The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own - The file is under a 'self' license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list hereEdit

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2019 August 18}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader= |reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext |Uploader= }} for each additional file. Also, add {{ffd|log=2019 August 18}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext |Second_file.ext |Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ffdc|File_name.ext|log=2019 August 18}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1926, not 1920.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file - The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues - The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free - The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Contents

Instructions for discussion participationEdit

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussionsEdit

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussionsEdit

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

August 6

File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png

File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clear copyvio taken from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/04/patrick-crusius-el-paso-shooting-suspect-fuels-fears-increasing/ WWGB (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This file's copyright is owned by Walmart and not the telegraph who posted it from police information made public. It's not a copyvio if it qualifies under fair use. The file has been reviewed and the image resized to comply with fair use rationale. I very thoroughly researched the photo before uploading it, and another editor scaled the image down. As it stands, it's clearly allowed under fair use doctrine. Please AGF. I clearly identified the source of the photo, along with the fact that it is a still of live video from the Walmart Surveillance System Video provided to the police. Materials provided to the police and made part of a public police investigation are also clearly allowed under fair use and in fact may be in the public domain. If Walmart objects to the use of an image they themselves released into the public domain, they can open a ticket and complain about it, and at that time we should review it's usage. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • File appears to comply with fair use, per Octoberwoodland. (I wouldn't speculate that it's in the public domain though.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an image of an event used in an article about that event. Contextual significance: it's an image of the perpetrator in the commission of the crime that is the subject of the article. Free equivalent available? Not without a time machine. Previous publication? Everywhere. Minimal usage? Small resolution, used once. This seems like an WP:NFC home run. Levivich 00:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, legit fair use. EllenCT (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

July 30

File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg

File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheVirginiaHistorian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 22, the copyright arguments summarized as follows: As is noted there, this stamp was published after 1978 and the US Postal Office can and does claim copyright on stamps published after that date. On the other hand per the various court cases and Copyright Office precedents listed at commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America taking a public domain image - in this case File:MNBPRickettsBatteryPainting.jpg - and altering it does not automatically create a new copyright by the alter-er. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete US Stamp from 2011. Even though it uses an image clearly in the public domain, the stamp itself is still subject to copyright law, and requires the permission of the USPS to redistribute. The USPS discusses the separate copyright potentially held by the image holder here: that is not an issue here, but does not detract from the fact the entire stamp is specifically under copyright. I would be shocked if a U.S. court invalidated a postage stamp's copyright because they used a public domain image as the stamp's background. SportingFlyer T·C 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • uscode.house.gov's copy of the USC that I linked at the DRV seems broken today, but here's an archive from the end of March. The paragraph we're interested in is the last one, and in particular the last sentence: "However, any copyright claimed by the Postal Service in its works, including postage stamp designs, would be subject to the same conditions, formalities, and time limits as other copyrightable works." The law makes it explicit that there's no copyright exception for stamps - neither making them automatically public domain despite being the work of a US government agency, nor making them automatically copyrighted because of that previous statement. Most stamp designs have copyrightable elements, so of course their brief general information web page about stamp reuse is going to talk about the usual case - for example, it doesn't even mention pre-1924 designs. This stamp does not have any copyrightable elements. Any other image using only these elements would be public domain. So is this one. Keep marked as public domain. —Cryptic 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I really have three concerns here: 1) even if the underlying image is in the public domain, the entirety of the stamp itself may still be copyrightable as a entire work/derived work, and there's nothing I can reasonably find that would suggest for or against, so calling it public domain is a conclusion of law; 2) even if the underlying image is in the public domain, stamp reproductions still have to comply with anti-counterfeiting laws, and the fact this is a coloured stamp which could be reproduced within 75% to 150% is a potential issue; 3) why do we need to use the stamp? Why can't we use the underlying image, which is unambiguously in the public domain? SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • 1) You're not going to be able to find a ruling that this specific image is or is not a copyrightable derived work. But if you really can find "nothing" to indicate that this derived work is copyrightable, then I have to conclude that you're either actively not looking for it, or have your "reasonabl"enessometer miscalibrated. Besides the links already on this page - which should be sufficient - I'll add the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices §308 and §§313.4(A)-(D). 2) It's too low resolution to print at full size, even without the jpeg artifacts (especially around the text). Even if it were, the potential for counterfeiting is no greater here than on any other stamp image we host, and much less than many (I didn't find any stamp images in lossless formats in my one-minute Commons search, but plenty that are sufficiently large and high quality to print; File:Rotary International 50th Anniversary 8c 1955 issue U.S. stamp.jpg is a representative example). 3) It was used specifically on an article about postage stamps. —Cryptic 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
        • 1) Do you really think I was so thick to be looking for a ruling this particular stamp was copyrightable? I looked for any copyright cases involving whether the use of a public domain image in a stamp makes the entire stamp lack copyright status. Looking at the Compendium, §308 suggests the creativity involved is rather low, which still puts the entirety of the stamp into copyright, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with §§313.4(A)-(D). It still hasn't convinced me this is clearly in the public domain. 2) 18 U.S. §504 has no resolution requirement. 3) in that case, why do we need to use this postage stamp specifically? SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Sorry for "but"-ing in here, but 1) § 313.4(A) "A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable." This stamp is a mere copy of a public domain painting, and if you think the words added to the image make it more than a "mere copy", 313.4(B) specifically cites, as an example of a modification to a public domain work that is not a copyrightable derivative work because it is de minimis: A public domain photograph of Winston Churchill combined with the word “Commitment” and the quotation “Never, never, never give up.” The stamp in question is just like that example. 313.4(C) talks about "words and short phrases" not being copyrightable. Meaning, this stamp is made up of (1) an uncopyrightable public domain image, and (2) uncopyrightable words and phrases, so the component parts are all common property, and 313.4(D) says "works consisting entirely of information that is common property" are not copyrightable. 2) I can't find an example of 18 USC § 504 being applied to prohibit a website from hosting an image of a stamp (or currency). 3) We don't need to justify use of a public domain image. Levivich 04:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore, due to Supreme Court denials of copyright in the United States for reproduction images in 1991 and 1999 . These cases apply to US corporations such as the USPS, and they standing law.
(1) Despite the blanket assertion by the USPS that all its creations are under copyright protection, at Commons: Threshold of originality we have, The threshold of originality [in the case of United States corporations such as the USPS], assesses whether “a particular work, or a portion of it, can be copyrighted.” At Threshold of originality we have, “originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author”.
This forum of WP editors is competent to judge whether an work is "original".
(2.a) In the 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court at Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ruled that copyright protection can only be granted to "works of authorship" that possess "at least some minimal degree of creativity". — “As such, mere labor (‘sweat of the brow’) is not sufficient to establish a copyright claim.”
Manufacturing a stamp alone does not make that stamp copyrightable.
(3.b) Reproductions are directly addressed in a 1999 Supreme Court ruling at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: Exact or ‘slavish’ reproductions of two-dimensional works such as paintings that are already in the public domain can NOT be considered original enough for protection under U.S. law as “original”.
- Issue #1: Considering the original out-of-copyright image for the stamp is found at its Wikicommons site without challenge at Rickett's Battery Painting, Shall this forum determine that the USPS has (a) no copyright claim for this or other images produced by National Park Service employees as a part of their official public duties, that the Wikipedia Foundation need recognize, because it does not exist under governing United States law.
- - and relatedly, there is no rationale for removing Ricket's Battery Painting from Wikipedia Foundation platforms ----- as an outcome of this July 30 forum.
- - and relatedly, the USPS has (b) no copyright claim on images produced prior to 1924 depicting paintings of (i) the Capture of New Orleans, (ii) the Battle of Antietam, and (ii) the Battle of Vicksburg — all found for five years since March 2014, at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, as they have fallen out of copyright protection.
(4) Again, at Feist, the Court asserted that . . . “Sufficiently original elements within the work itself can still be eligible for protection.”
- Issue #2: Whether the three stamp overprints (a) “USA”, (b) “Forever”, (c) “First Bull Run" and (d) "July 21, 1861”, on its stamps can be copyrighted by the USPS for its exclusive use, and so require removal of the copyrighted expression “USA” from the Wikipedia page at United States of America, and also "First Bull Run" and "July 21, 1861" at First Battle of Bull Run ----- as an outcome of this July 30 forum.
Conclusions:
- Issue #1, the Bridgeman and Fiest Supreme Court rulings govern USPS stamps producing uncopyrightable reproductions of public domain images, in this case, a stamp reproducing a public domain painting of Rickett's Battery at the Battle of Bull Run.
- Issue #2, USPS overprints on images do not create copyright privileges on reproductions without copyright protection in the United States, including uncreative and widely used mark-ups such as initials, date conventions, and historic battle titles, "forever" stamp denominations, and solid black framing around their published images. Restore. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Public domain/restore – I have nothing to add to TheVirginianHistorian's and Cryptic's comprehensive analyses. The Compendium sections cited by Cryptic above more or less settle Issue #2 in TheVirginianHistorian's analysis. Per the Compendium, a public domain image + words and phrases ≠ copyrightable. This stamp does not have any copyrightable elements, and thus it is public domain. Levivich 04:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per SportingFlyer. In my opinion (and I am no copyright expert, by any means), if I take a public domain painting and add various text/letters to it, and reproduce it as a "new" painting, then obviously it is not a sufficiently original work for copyright protection. However, this is not the issue. What we have is the USPS taking a public domain image and creating a "stamp" (a "new" work that is different, both in design with words/letters, the flourish around the edge of the image, its reduced size, and its conversion from a painting to a stamp), which based on the law that gives the USPS authority to claim copyright on stamps, would appear to be original enough to provide copyright protections. I say weak delete because my knowledge of this subject area is limited and I tend to read legal issues more literal than most. As a note to the closer of this discussion, I was the admin that originally deleted the image. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just commenting to say the "stamp" as a new work as described above is how I see this as well. I think it's reasonably likely a court would find this is not in the public domain, and since we don't have any case law showing stamps made after 1978 which use public domain images are in the public domain, just a blurb saying stamps aren't afforded any extra rights in copyright law, I don't see how we can keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Stamp as a new work" was rejected in Gaylord v. US, 595 F. 3d 1364 (2010) (see also the Bridgeman case TVH linked to above), and that argument wasn't even attempted in Davidson v. US, Court of Federal Claims 2018 (the $3.5M Statue of Liberty case). Both of those were fair use cases, but in public domain cases it's the same result, for example Earth Flag Ltd. v. Alamo Flag Co., 153 F. Supp. 2d 349, a guy took a PD photo of the Earth and put it on a flag, and the court found that wasn't copyrightable. I'm not aware of a case where taking a PD image and putting it on a stamp (or a flag, or a coffee mug, or whatever) was considered to be derivative or transformative. Levivich 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope, Gaylord has nothing to do with this. In Gaylord, the government argued the use of a copyrighted photo was transformative enough to qualify for fair use. At no point in time is the copyright of the stamp itself discussed - it's all about whether the government could use the copyrighted work in the stamp. And in terms of public domain works, there's nothing in the stamp which restores the original copyright of the painting - it's all about whether the additional features of the stamp, the text, the border, create something which as a whole can itself be copyrighted. See [1] at "If you're using a derivative work, watch out for these..." or [2]. We can't conclusively claim the derivative work is public domain just because the photo used is public domain! SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I feel like it is somewhat a semantic issue. In my opinion, you create a stamp, you don't put an image on a stamp. A "stamp" with no text or pictures isn't a stamp, it's just a blank sticker. Both examples given (a mug and a flag) are unique objects that you can put an image on. A blank flag is still a flag. Again, I know it sounds minor and is semantic, but the fact that US law specifically carves a niche out for stamp design swings me to the belief that the legislative intent was that stamp designs are unique works eligible for copyright protection in all cases. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Which US law specifically carves a niche out for stamp design? Levivich 21:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • After reviewing this again, I still think that the "carve out" arguments were thoroughly addressed by Cryptic and THV's citations above. The § 105 notes require copyright "conditions" to be met, one of which is threshold of originality. There is nothing here that suggests the threshold of originality is met. The Compendium § 313.4 is very explicit that adding texts to public domain pictures doesn't meet the threshold (they use, as an example of something that doesn't meet the threshold, adding "never give up" to a PD image of Churchill, a right-on-point analogy to adding "Bull Run" to a PD image of Bull Run). The argument that just being a stamp, in and of itself, meets that threshold, has been rejected by US courts (see the Bridgeman and Gaylord cases linked above). I see no legal authority put forward here that suggests this stamp would be copyrightable (for example, no case in which a stamp made up of a PD image plus text was found to be copyrightable). Levivich 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've already noted above neither Bridgeman nor Gaylord apply here, since they have to do with the image the stamp uses, not the entirety of the stamp itself, which is a separate, derivative work specifically subject to copyright. There's also no instance in which a stamp issued after 1978 which uses a public domain image has been definitively found to be in the public domain, which is what we're arguing over - whether we can correctly classify the image of this stamp as public domain, which we cannot do. It's possible a court would find these stamps in the public domain, it's also possible a court could find this stamp is subject to copyright. I'd be a really fun case to be a trial attorney for, to be honest! SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If a stamp were a separate, derivative work, the Federal Claims Court wouldn't have just ordered the Postal Service to pay $3.5 million for using a copyrighted image on a stamp without permission (the Davidson case). I just don't see any basis to the view that a stamp, because it's a stamp, in and of itself, is a separate, derivative work, as opposed to just an image printed on a special kind of paper. The Postal Reorg Act, to my reading, explicitly doesn't carve out a niche for stamp design; it says a stamp isn't special and must conform to the same conditions, etc., as any other work claiming copyright. This Bull Run stamp can't meet the threshold of originality because there are no original components: not the picture, not the text added, and not the stamp format. Agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 04:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I still think you're confusing "derivative work" here. The stamp itself is unquestionably a derivative work of the artwork, since it's a completely different work - the question is, since part of the stamp was originally public domain, does that make the entirety of the stamp public domain? Just because the Postal Service failed to secure the rights to the images it used doesn't mean there's not still potentially a copyright in the stamp itself. The stamp and the artwork are two separate works. Furthermore, the Postal Reorganisation Act was important because it meant stamps could be copyrighted, something the postal service has secured since 1978. I'm sure the postal service would assume they have a copyright interest in this stamp, and all of the legal advice I've seen has been very simple: is it created after 1978? If yes, then the USPS holds a copyright in the stamp. Saying the stamp is public domain because it incorporates artwork in the public domain is an interesting argument and one which might win in court, but it's not something we can assume. SportingFlyer T·C 05:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
──────────────────────────── Levivich, I understand where you are coming from and I do appreciate your reasoning. I would wholeheartedly agree with your comments if the image we were discussing was just a PD image with some text on it. The distinction, in my opinion, is that the image that was uploaded was a stamp design. The niche I was referencing about stamp design in the law comes from the fact that the status quo for works by US Government employees in their official roles are, in almost all cases, public domain; however, Congress felt the needed to clarify that stamp designs are a unique work requiring specifically noted exceptions to the copyright status quo. Based on this language, I cannot definitely say that I am correct, or that you are correct. However, it does provide a reasonable level of doubt that the image we are discussing is compatible with our licensing requirements. Based on my understanding of our image policy, the burden of proof falls on the uploader (or in this case, the editor(s) arguing to keep the image on Wikipedia under a free license) to clearly show that the image uploaded to Wikipedia is compatible with our licensing requirements. Although you make a compelling case that may end up being true before a legal body, I don't believe that you have provided sufficient supporting evidence to remove the reasonable level of doubt that exists regarding this image. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A couple of years ago there was a debate over stamp image use where it was noted that the USPS allows reproduction of its stamp images when the image is used for educational (non-commercial) purposes, as would be the case here at Wikipedia. However, for the life of me, I can't find this stipulation anywhere. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, per our image policy (WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT): "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." Thus, even if USPS allowed images to reproduced for educational (non-commercial) purposes, they would still be ineligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

July 22

File:George dog.jpg

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

This file has a number of failings with regard to the non-free content (NFC) criteria policy. The source for the image is a bare URL, but that links to dailymail.co.uk, the website of the Daily Mail; as the FDP says the file’s purpose is "to illustrate the article in question", that would presumably be the same market role as the Daily Mail's (WP:NFCC#2). Furthermore, having read and written George (dog), I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand (WP:NFCC#8). Lastly, the FDP claims this image under our "unique historic image" license—{{non-free historic image}}—but that tag requires that the image "must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - With respect to WP:NFCC#2, the image of the dog almost certainly from the owners of the dog and not a photo by the Daily Mail. See [3], [4] where family members have printed photos of the dog visibile in the news photo. As well, how and why would the Daily Mail have a photo of the dog prior to the dog's heroic actions? As this is quite clearly a family photo and not the product of a commercial organisation, NFFC#2 is not an issue. As for WP:NFCC#8, the purpose in the NFUR can be cleaned up to indicate that the image is being used as the primary means of visual identification in the infobox and cannot be replaced with a free image as the subject is deceased. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    Both sources you provided show the same photo, but none of the three identify the copyright holder. Without knowing that, how are we to conclusively determine the "original market role of the original copyrighted material"? With regards to NFCC#8, you didn't speak to how the omission of this presumably copyrighted photo is detrimental to understanding anything written and sourced in the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    We do not need to conclusively determine the copyright holder to see these are family photos and come to the conclusion that our usage does not replace teh original market value of the image. As for the contextual significance, the nonfree content guidelines provide examples of acceptable use including "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." In this case the deceased is a dog, but the same principle applies. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    for the contextual significance, the nonfree content guidelines provide examples of acceptable use At Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use, before any examples are listed, that guideline says "the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria ["a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."] and provide rationales and licensing information." That policy requires, as I mentioned, that absence of the NFC be detrimental to understanding. Also as I said, "I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand."
    In this case the deceased is a dog, but the same principle applies. Iff the NFC met #8, then we can apply WP:NFC#Images, the tenth example of which says, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person…" The image and article in question are about a dog, not a person. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    You've interpreted the guidelines and examples in a very literal manner which I disagree with. I'll just leave it at that. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The image is used in the infobox to illustrate the animal that the article is about passing WP:NFCC#8 and this is a similar situation to the acceptable fair use for a deceased person in their article per WP:NFCI. Aspects (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    WP:NFCC#8 does not, whatsoever, say that using copyrighted material for illustration meets muster. Secondly, as I've said above to Whpq, WP:NFCI is applicable only when the WP:NFCC have already been met, and furthermore refer to "deceased persons". — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:NFCC#8 as it identifies the subject of the article as described in WP:NFC#CS. Use in the infobox, of an entity that is no longer available for photography, is a very standard NFC case. The only difference here is, of course, that it's a dog and not a person. The WP:NFCI are examples of acceptable NFC uses. It's very easy to see here why this use is comparable to images of deceased persons.
    As for WP:NFCC#2, basically anything except for photos made by photo agencies passes for use like this. Our use – a free content collaborative encyclopedia – is transformative almost every way. Anyone with experience in files knows that we can never know with absolute certanly who owns the copyright and what they intend do to with it, so if there is doubt as to whether the relevant criteria are met, it has to be based on some actual substance. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    You said it meets NFCC#8, yet you didn't explain how the NFC is necessary to understand the article as written, nor how anything becomes less understandable without it—which is what NFCC#8 requires. Also, did you have any input on the failure to meet the requirements of {{non-free historic image}}? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more discussion on the WP:NFCC#2 point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, subject is deceased and no free alternative exists. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    That addresses neither the needs of WP:NFCC#8 and {{non-free historic image}}, though. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    It satisfies WP:NFCC#1, though. The article says "A 30-centimetre (12 in)-tall Jack Russell Terrier with 'a heart condition'", and the sole link in that phrase is Jack Russell Terrier, whose main pictue denotes a JRT that does not look like George at all, i.e. contextual significance. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    I … didn't mention #1? All ten NFCC must be met, not just one or a few, yes? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    It satisfies 9/10 points, and my explanation above and Jheald's below denotes where is the contextual significance requested by NFCC. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very long established that showing what the subject of an article looks or looked like adds valuably and significantly to what the reader understands of the subject, so is a rationale for NFCC #8, and so such an image should be acceptable, if it does not conflict with any of the other NFCCs (in particular #1 and #2). The nominator appears to misunderstand NFCC #8, judging from their comment I cannot find anything there that requires the use of NFC to understand. The test NFCC #8 lays down is what will add to the understanding of the topic as a whole, not what might be required to understand any particular piece of text or content in the article. Jheald (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Jheald and Masem (talk · contribs) are participating in a discussion at WT:NFC#contradiction? that pertains to this FFD. I won't repeat what I'm commenting there, but am making this note for others' awareness. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg

File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Xaosflux (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image at Commons existed before the file uploaded here. No legitimate reason to have it here as it won't be deleted at Commons as mere {{PD-shape}}. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as local copy primarily due to be used on over a million pages via Module:EditAtWikidata - any changes to these pages on the English Wikipedia should be controlled here on the English Wikipedia, we are unable to control if this file gets deleted or overwritten on commons. This is standard practice for most of our extremely heavily used files (normally ones in the MediaWiki namespace). — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You can request upload-protection at Commons for that exact reason. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That still takes it out of local control, should we ever actually want this to be changed it should be carefully evaluated and tested here first. — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about other files, but currently this appears to be the only one shadowing an image at Commons and these conflicts shouldn't exist. For the record, I requested protection at Commons per the security concerns. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: I suspect that that category is just wrong, since the file here is newer I don't think it is actually such a shadow - feel free to fix the category name. — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of how these are normally tagged up: File:Move-protection-shackle.svg. — xaosflux Talk 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the bot might have gotten it wrong (perhaps there is a different end-of-file marker in the svg code) - if there is an appropriate updated copy at commons I'm also fine with updating the one here to match (to avoid the 'shadow' vs general 'keep local' problem). — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What is this?Edit

I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/Los_Angeles_area_task_force, where this discussion was listed. What is this thing anyway, and why was it listed there? Thanks. It's the first time I've seen anything like this, although I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: very odd that that listing bot put it there, but this image is on 600,000+ articles and over a million pages so it probably confused the listing bot. This image is the little tiny pencil icon that you click on to make an edit of content that is stored over on wikidata. See above for some explanation of why the nominator wants to delete the local copy, and why at least I think it should be maintained. — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#File reported czar 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this?

I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/Los_Angeles_area_task_force, where this discussion was listed. What is this thing anyway, and why was it listed there? Thanks. It's the first time I've seen anything like this, although I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: very odd that that listing bot put it there, but this image is on 600,000+ articles and over a million pages so it probably confused the listing bot. This image is the little tiny pencil icon that you click on to make an edit of content that is stored over on wikidata. See above for some explanation of why the nominator wants to delete the local copy, and why at least I think it should be maintained. — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#File reported czar 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

July 1

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg

File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA8445.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofHesikhebEA37908.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusofNeshorpakheredEA36188.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:BritishMuseumHypocephalusEA37907.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus license claims. (See here; this information [specifically the license mentioned on the aforementioned link] applies to all images in this collection.) The license for these images is actually "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"; the "NC" part is "noncommercial", and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not trying to be deceptive here. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter states "Mere mechanical scans or photocopies, made by somebody else, of an object or design old enough to be in the public domain (usually 70 years after the death of the author)". All of these images are thousands of years olds, and definitely fall into the category of mechanical scans or photocopies. Do you agree that I just need to replace the license information or do you think I am doing something illegal? Epachamo (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not thinking you are doing anything "illegal", but there is another possible issue here, even if these are too old for copyright. These pictures may still have their copyrights held by who took them (if they are considered unique/artistic enough), and the images may still have their copyrights held by whoever took them. At this point, I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm no artist, but I do not see anything unique/artistic in the photographs. I'm also no lawyer, so I will concur with someone that knows better. Epachamo (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Whilst the photograph licenses are NC, this is a moot point if they fall under PD-Art (i.e. if the photographs are not considered creative enough to create a separate United States copyright). In any case, BY-NC-SA works should not be labelled as BY-SA since they are not available under the BY-SA (this is sometimes noted as one of the flaws in the Creative Commons branding, that a number of very different licences are bundled under one umbrella, with all the confusion this causes…).

Since Wikipedia is supposed to be libre content, with fair use provisions only for media which cannot conceivably be replaced with libre content (I go into more detail about what this means here), BY-NC-SA alone doesn't make the image acceptable. However, {{PD-Art}} content is acceptable both on English Wikipedia and on Commons. So the question is whether they fall under PD-Art (which is quite plausible). -- HarJIT (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:LouvreHypocephalusofIrethorrou.jpg

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

Per the referenced page, looks like this image does not have a free license release, and can only, in effect, be used via fair use. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter states "Mere mechanical scans or photocopies, made by somebody else, of an object or design old enough to be in the public domain (usually 70 years after the death of the author)". All of these images are thousands of years olds, and definitely fall into the category of mechanical scans or photocopies. Do you agree that I just need to replace the license information or do you think I am doing something illegal? Epachamo (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not thinking you are doing anything "illegal", but there is another possible issue here, even if these are too old for copyright. These pictures may still have their copyrights held by who took them (if they are considered unique/artistic enough), and the images may still have their copyrights held by whoever took them. At this point, I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm no artist, but I do not see anything unique/artistic in the photographs. I'm also no lawyer, so I will concur with someone that knows better. (I will add that plundering Egypts cultural heritage, and then acting like they can copyright it is mindblowing to me.) Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I concur. Copyright laws are a bit strange in that way, especially if the photographer claims the photograph is artistically unique with the angle they took it, or shadowing, or something like that. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair use is not an option for this image in the article where it is used. The article is about a type of objects. The article is not about the photographic work of photographer C. Décamps. The pictured object is not copyrighted and fair use is irrelevant for it. As for the photographic work of the photographer, either it is copyrighted or it's not copyrighted. If it's not copyrighted, there is no problem. If the photographic work is copyrighted, fair use is not an option unless the photo is used in the context of a substantial commentary about the photographic work of C. Décamps. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Similarly to the other discussion, the main question is whether it is applicable to use {{PD-Art}}. Which is not unlikely. -- HarJIT (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • If I made a facsimile of the bronze object based on the photograph, would that be illegal? Epachamo (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:"WE" Author's Autograph Page.jpg

File:"WE" Author's Autograph Page.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Centpacrr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This sure isn't a logo (per the tag on the file), and there is no clear way to validate that this file is eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}}. Either way, as a fair-use file, this could potentially fail WP:NFCC#8 at its current location in "WE" (1927 book). Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am completely puzzled as to what possible objection there is to this long standing image. It certainly does not contain any information that is "original enough" to constitute it being intellectually creative as all it contains is a recitation of the name of the book and its author. and states in plain language that it is a numbered autograph page which contains Lindbergh's signature. The fact there were 1,000 of these autographed numbered copies published as a part of the first edition of the book (which is what the entire entry is about) and they are also mentioned in the entry's text as well as the three footnoted citations make this image more than relevant and appropriate. Bottom line is that this 92=year old author's autograph page more then meets the criteria as being in the Public Domain in its lacking sufficient originality to be copyrightable as defined in §101 of the US Copyright Act of 1976, and that the image also serves to illustrate a material fact discussed in the text. Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

June 22

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg

File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carl savich (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Bogus PD-US claim, was published in 1941. Also ineligible for fair-use, would fail WP:NFCC#8 if converted. FASTILY 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: The song itself is still under copyright, but the image just has text and a company logo which might either be below ToO or old enough to be public domain. (Nipper image is public domain by age) Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: the song isn’t PD as it was published in 1941 (less than 95 years old). The text on the record label isn’t really eligible for copyright. But would the image/logo be considered de minimis and therefore acceptable for Commons? --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is over 11 days old and has not received s clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It might be acceptable for Commons. Pinging @Magog the Ogre for their thoughts. Abzeronow (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The illustration is a derivative of a the famous public domain photograph of Nipper. However, the illustration gains its own copyright when drawn. It can't immediately tell if this version of the illustration was registered with the copyright office; probably not. The text is certainly not copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (tc) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: apparently, this version of Nipper is PD. Loads have been kept on Commons. I think we're debating what to think about the bird logo here and in the other file. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusionEdit

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

File:WalterGordon suicide.jpgEdit

File:WalterGordon suicide.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Editus Reloaded (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There are several pieces of non-free media in this article without any reference to them being used in educational or critical fashion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:GD2-Nick Hallucination.jpgEdit

File:GD2-Nick Hallucination.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Editus Reloaded (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There are several pieces of non-free media in this article without any reference to them being used in educational or critical fashion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cratenburial-scream.jpgEdit

File:Cratenburial-scream.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Editus Reloaded (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There are several pieces of non-free media in this article without any reference to them being used in educational or critical fashion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:NBC's first Democratic primary debate 2020.jpgEdit

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 F7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

File:NBC's first Democratic primary debate 2020.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Golfpecks256 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No rationale provided for fair use, image accredited to Getty Images at provided source SecretName101 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does uploading an image to Wikipedia have to be so complicated? This discourages editors like myself from uploading important images. Golfpecks256 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Recent nominationsEdit

August 12Edit

Hanging on the TelephoneEdit

File:Blondie - Hanging On The Telephone (UK).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dreamer.se (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Blondie - Hanging On The Telephone.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dreamer.se (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Two cover arts are used in the "Hanging on the Telephone" article. Normally, one cover art should suffice for a single. On one hand, the US picture sleeve should be used because the band is American and the song was produced in the US. On the other hand, the song wasn't charted in the US but overseas instead, including the UK, and the UK picture sleeve should reflect that. Personally, I would lean toward the American sleeve, but I'm torn. If charts weigh more than mere nationality and intended primary targeted demographics (i.e. American listeners of the time), then the UK sleeve it is. Can we have one cover or both? George Ho (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I reverted the speedy NAC. This is a NFCC discussion, particularly criterion 3.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the relevant consensus about when to use an extra non-free cover can be found at: Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. Specifically, "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion." – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, both images are fine because they convey relevant information. This discussion didn't need to be reopened. What is there even to discuss? This is beyond pedantic. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cinema Cinema Publicity Image.jpgEdit

File:Cinema Cinema Publicity Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SteakSpecial (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP #3a. There is one more non-free image in the same article. Regards. Titodutta (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 13Edit

File:Meisterstadt 5-2019.jpgEdit

File:Meisterstadt 5-2019.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Samuelsp15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A license has not been provided for the photograph itself, only the pictured work. A free image could be taken of the development, so WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment: I have read the image policy, but I pretty confused with it too because in one of its rules, it stated that work of architecture has copyright and this image I've got is from website. Therefore, I belived this is a non-free content. So, I put it as fair use image. I also put the source on it. If someone have any thoughts in this, any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    US FoP applies to photographs of buildings, so the photographer holds exclusive copyright under US law. {{FoP-USonly}} applies since buildings are copyright in Indonesia (c:COM:FOP Indonesia). For the photograph to be free, the copyright holder (photographer) must explicitly release it under a free license. There is no evidence that this has been done. Since anyone could photograph the development and freely license it, it is replaceable with a free work. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    I see. After I checked it again (with your suggestion), this image does not provide any sufficient details. So, I need to photograph and freely licensed it, which means that I have to upload a new version of the file. But, because this file is about the development in May 2019, what about if I take the photo from the official website (account)? Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    I doubt that photo would be freely licensed. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: After checking all related websites, I pretty sure that this man (here, in https://web.archive.org/web/20190814104828/https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1855091&page=14&amp=1) photographed the development. Samuelsp15 (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert CD.jpgEdit

File:A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert CD.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Niggle1892 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification, contrary to the rationale. Use in A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert does not satisfy WP:NFCI#1 since the article subject is the film, not the album. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

File:ICC World Twenty20 Trophy.jpgEdit

File:ICC World Twenty20 Trophy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gihan Jayaweera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

NFCC not met: (#1) image is clearly replaceable, as this is a current trophy that tours around grounds. (#8) Article is not centred around the trophy, and does not discuss it in depth; instead being about the tournament at which the trophy is awarded. Harrias talk 09:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 14Edit

File:BubbleGuppiesFanBoiRoblox.pngEdit

File:BubbleGuppiesFanBoiRoblox.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arthurfan828 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file used only in userspace. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The River Niger Original Film Poster Thumbnail.jpgEdit

File:The River Niger Original Film Poster Thumbnail.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SteakSpecial (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 1 and 8. Film's poster is being used on biography of film's director. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - it is claimed to be used for primary identification but it is not used that way as it is in a section of the bio and it cannot be used that way as it doe snot identify the subject who iaa person and not a film. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.pngEdit

File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wisefroggy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no need for a non-free image of the editorial. The allegations of sexual misconduct are in the article as text and are sufficient for the reader to understand. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this definitely fails. Newspaper articles are cited in Wikipedia. We do not display images of those articles. -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Shibuya Moyai.jpgEdit

File:Shibuya Moyai.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dj nix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly unfree. Photographer and uploader tagged with GNU/CC licenses but Commons states Japan does not allow freedom of panorama for commercial use. Can't determine original creator. I added it to Moai before removing it and is otherwise orphaned aside from Talk:Moai. 93 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 15Edit

August 16Edit

File:RPyongPennant.JPGEdit

File:RPyongPennant.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhillyDelphia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RadioPyongyangPennant.JPG Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Season 1 title card, version 2.pngEdit

File:Season 1 title card, version 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gardo Versace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate title card for season 1 of a TV series. Claimed to be used for primary identification but that purpose is being fulfilled by File:Original title card.png. This is used only in a section with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Season 2 title card, second version.pngEdit

File:Season 2 title card, second version.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gardo Versace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate title card for season 2 of a TV series. Claimed to be used for primary identification but that purpose is being fulfilled by File:Season 2 title card, version 1.png. This is used only in a section with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Season 2 title card, version 3.pngEdit

File:Season 2 title card, version 3.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gardo Versace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate title card for season 2 of a TV series. Claimed to be used for primary identification but that purpose is being fulfilled by File:Season 2 title card, version 1.png. This is used only in a section with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Season 3 title card, version 1.jpgEdit

File:Season 3 title card, version 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gardo Versace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate title card for season 3 of a TV series. Claimed to be used for primary identification but that purpose is being fulfilled by File:Ang Probinsyano (season 3).jpg. This is used only in a section with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Season 6 title card, version 1.jpgEdit

File:Season 6 title card, version 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gardo Versace (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate title card for season 6 of a TV series. Claimed to be used for primary identification but that purpose is being fulfilled by File:Ang Probinsyano (season 6) Title Card version 2.png. This is used only in a section with no significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

August 17Edit

File:The Irishman teaser poster.jpgEdit

File:The Irishman teaser poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mazewaxie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Apparently this poster is fan-made. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 12:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 18Edit

File:Recording of Digital Planet at BBC's Nairobi studio.jpgEdit

File:Recording of Digital Planet at BBC's Nairobi studio.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shekar brother (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

a pic copied from someone's twitter feed as per the upload page on wikipedia, are not in Public Domain unless explicitly released as such. DBigXray 11:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


FooterEdit

Today is August 18 2019. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 18 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===August 18===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.