Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 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.
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.
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.
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:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
((db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix)) for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
((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.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file ((db-f9)).
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)).
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use ((db-imagepage)).
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)).
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.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with ((db-author)).
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
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. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add ((Ffd|log=2022 July 26)) 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:Ffd notice|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:Ffd notice 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=2022 July 26)) 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 1929, not 1923.
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.
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, notvoting. 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 discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.
This can be hosted at Commons. According to this source the logo has been designed in 1991 (1370 SH) by Morteza Momayez. I don't give a damn what the US government says about the Iranian works. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, since the governing laws of Wikipedia (where the servers are hosted) prevail, US law needs to be considered. Buffs (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at Commons. We don't do URAA deletions at Commons. As I said, this work can be transferred to Commons. It's safer there than here, I suppose. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, legally speaking there's no problem as Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention so any content from Iran is fair game in the US. This could change if Iran becomes a Berne Convention member in the future. Wiki policy is different. I was slightly confused though, Jo-Jo Eumerus is right that if the copyright has already expired in Iran it's fine. File:Semnan Damghan train collision.jpg is indeed a different situation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is strictly in relation to "I don't give a damn what the US government says about the Iranian works." My point is that we have to consider what the US gov't's take is on this. As you stated, they are not party to the Berne Convention, so their works are not protected. Likewise, that could change. Accordingly, the status of their copyrights in the US is dependent upon Iran's status with regard to copyright protections in the US. That was really all I was getting at. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Semnan Damghan train collision.jpg is irrelevant, as it's not freely published in Iran, so it cannot be hosted at Commons. You may know that Tasnim sometimes publishes images which do not belong to the news agency. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of this non-free image is "to demonstrate the distinctive style of the Barbie TV series depicting Skipper", but there is no significant sourced critical commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added a paragraph commenting about the style of the animated version with a source to AWN. I copied the image purpose from File:Optimusprime-animated.jpg but still think it applies since it shows how the Barbie characters were given their new "realistic and modern CGI look" for the TV series as mentioned in the news article. Going over NFCC, I think one image showing the animated design is OK. Lagoona Blue (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the uploader has now added sourced commentary that the image helps illustrate. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Source website indicates a non-commercial license. The photograph was taken in 1937 and may be in public domain for other reasons, but this requires evidence. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeenAroundAWhile: We prefer to use free media whenever possible, and only resort to fair use if a free alternative could not be found. A non-commercial restriction is not compatible with our definition of a free license. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for more information. The image in question is not used anywhere and therefore does not qualify for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused derivative work of non-free image. [1]Ixfd64 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the bridge's article already has a few free images of the bridge. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the photograph is of a three-dimensional work of art, copyright would apply to any photographs that were taken of the subject. While it is possible that the copyright was released, that requires confirmation. There is no evidence that the stated interaction occurred. It is also too recent to be a grandfathered old file. ―SusmuffinTalk 19:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale and evidence listed with the file seems sufficient. Likewise, I don't see this being beyond a faithful representation of a PD and 2D work of art which happens to be on a 3D surface. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is There's no way that 4 V's arranged in a circle meet the TOO...certainly not in China where even File:KON_logo.svg doesn't pass TOO for copyrightability. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unused file. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a logo's history is relevant and I can certainly see a valid encyclopedic use for it. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to stuff the logo into the article. I do not see that it would be particularly useful or enlightening to have it in the article. Whpq (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is Same rationale as above. There's no way that 4 V's arranged in a circle meet the TOO...certainly not in China where even File:KON_logo.svg doesn't pass TOO for copyrightability. If you believe otherwise, please explain why. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unused file. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a logo's history is relevant and I can certainly see a valid encyclopedic use for it. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an historic logo should be in the article, then the SVG file above should be used. There is no need for a copy in PNG format. Whpq (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fix license...seems pretty clear the uploader intended this to be PD. Same should be done on Commons. Buffs (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an external source for this image? If there is, this can be deleted as a copyvio, but if there isn't, we can keep as voluntarily released in the public domain. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed 03:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Buffs (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found elsewhere before local upload. No permission. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: I uploaded the photo on my own social media before here. I removed myself for Wikipedia use. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Catholic Laitinen: Even assuming you are the person in the picture, the copyright typically belongs to the photographer rather than the subject or subjects. You couldn't possibly have taken this photo unless you used a timer. Furthermore, the low resolution and lack of metadata suggest this image was downloaded from the web. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: The photo is from a public event, I paid for the photo and the rights to it. I believe the agency that runs said events can use it for promotional reasons, but that doesn't alter or restrict my rights in the least. I find this "discussion" to be frivolous and unnecessary, if we're being honest, if the file is deleted it will be re-uploaded higher quality and with proof of my ownership if necessary. I have a physical copy that only I was given the password to download. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Laitinen payment does not mean you bought the photographer's copyright. It cannot be sold; it can only be transferred through a contract or written stipulation. Ownership does not equate to copyright, you must have an evidence suggesting you have a document that stipulates the photographer has transferred his copyright to you. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not per the nominator's reasoning, but instead under CSD F8 (because the file is already uploaded to Commons). Then we can let the Commons community deal with its copy of the image; confirming that you have the rights to share the image can be negotiated through the VRT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Laitinen: Pinging to point you to the VRT so you can inform them of you having the rights to the image. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is available on the DUSTOFF Association website in better resolution. It was uploaded there a year before it was on Wikipedia (see URL, it mentions 2020). It is not available there under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence. The author on the above-mentioned website is not credited, while on Wikipedia the authorship is attributed to Don.H.40 . In addition, there is code in the metadata typical for Facebook images (FBMD010...). All this could be used to consider this file as possibly nonfree. Pius (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More info needed from uploader evidence is inconclusive, but press author for more info. If not clarification is forthcoming, delete. Buffs (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer of the photo provided it to me for use on the page. We communicate through Facebook Chat, which is why it appears as a Facebook download. I have replaced it with a photo he provided me of the 2020 Awards, which does not appear to be on the Dustoff Association website. His comment to me was "edit as you see fit."Don.H.40 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently the 2020 picture IS on their website. But he did specifically send it to me. Let me see if I can get him to e-mail me the original, so I can upload it with the Metadata so you'll believe me.Don.H.40 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the photos has indeed released them under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, then we are on the right way. The only problem is that he did it on a private Facebook chat. Metadata might confirm who the author is, but there also needs to be verifiability of the licence. Ideally the photographer should use the Wikimedia VRT release generator and attach these two files. Everything is explained there step by step. They will then be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in some time. @Don.H.40: There, on Commons, is the place for files under a free licence. Locally, on English Wikipedia, one generally uploads non-free fair use files. — Pius (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will talk to him. He had a death in the family, so told me to back off. I told him I'd get back to him next week.Don.H.40 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Uploader is verifying their proof that they secured permission from the photographer... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are two copyrights at issue here. The copyright for the photograph can be sorted out through VRT, but this is a photo of a 3d work and there is no freedom of panorama for 3d works. The copyright on the bust means the image is not sufficiently free. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These appear to be commissioned works, ergo, the copyright could be retained with those who commissioned the work (i.e. the original uploader). Buffs (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe the uploader commissioned the works? Regardless, you may have commissioned works mixed up with work for hire. The artist still retains the copyright for a commissioned work unless there is an agreement made to transfer the copyright. Whpq (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is just a screenshot from one of the videos and the purpose is (said) just to visually identify each member of the band, it should fall under WP:NFC#UULP and free use should not be allowed. Sun8908Talk 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific section(s) of WP:NFC#UULP are the problem? Nightyb (t) 03:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well there's no feasible way for me to take a picture of them myself as I live in Australia and they are based in South Korea, and I have tried to contact them via Facebook Messenger (and Youtube), so where does that leave us? Nightyb (t) 02:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an existing band so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. The picture can't be used because the band exists? This seems unreasonable. Nightyb (t) 03:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. The fact that a band exists means that a free image of the band members could be taken and uploaded. It would be different if this was a band that no longer existed because a member was deceased (i.e. one COULDN'T be created). Buffs (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Could" seems very open ended... I've taken reasonable steps to obtain a suitable image, what should I do now? Nightyb (t) 04:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can look for a freely licensed image that somebody else made. If you can't find one, then you are done. Wikipedia only allows non-free content if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. For an existing band, even if you cannot find a free image, and you personally cannot create one, somebody else could create a freely licensed photo and so WP:NFCC#1 is not met. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you (and Buffs) for clarifying the situation. Last question: Where does WP:NFCC#1 originate? (US law?) Nightyb (t) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipedia policy. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightyb: NFCC is rooted in the concept of fair use and, yes, US/International Copyright law. Wikipedia's policies are a further restriction/elaboration on the concept of Fair Use. In order to meet the criteria for using something that is copyrighted, you need to have a rationale for it. For some, like iconic photographs, a rationale is easy (such as when it is the subject of an article). Wikipedia goes one step beyond that and requires such rationales to be spelled out. Some uses could indeed be justified for usage in an encyclopedia, like the publicity photo or a screenshot of a band, but the goal of Wikipedia is to allow such images for use anywhere, where that is possible. The more non-free images WP uses, the less portable the Encyclopedia and its contents are. I've personally had my images used and I was given credit, but no royalties because it was released for free use. Hopefully that gives a little more rationale. Buffs (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that our NFCC is far stricter than fair use; I think this band image is okay in general as fair use, but the Foundation wants to keep the use of fair-use images at a minimum, leading to WMF-imposed restrictions like the NFCC. That is, the NFCC is not mandated by specific laws or rulings, but by a WMF mission statement.
In addition, Wikipedians in general really do not like non-free images of living persons. Non-free images of dead people are more likely to be condoned (e.g. Killing of Gabby Petito). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Living person, non-free image should not be used. Billytanghh (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
July 21
File:Roc city ballet futurpointe.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.
Source website indicates "All rights reserved." I could find no evidence this photograph was ever freely licensed. Only used in user space. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while usable, the license is incorrect. Buffs (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Falak palace.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.
Source website indicates "All rights reserved." I could find no evidence this photograph was ever freely licensed. The photographer (Bikash Mishra according to Flickr profile) and uploader (Ratna Sandeep according to user page) do not appear to be the same person. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. Buffs (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:.Baba Ka Dhaba case.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.
As far as I can tell from Baba Ka Dhaba case all three people in this picture are still alive and none are incarcerated. The provided rationale for replaceability is "No other image is available". A free replacement (WP:NFCC#1) could probably be created. Even if it couldn't, the article is about an incident involving these people, not about the people themselves, so it's also questionable if this would meet WP:NFCC#8. (contextual significance) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Exists on Commons as c:File:Ivan Semyonovich Polbin.jpg. According to the uploader published in Журнал «Красноармеец» №1, 1943 год which translates to Magazine "Red Army" No1, 1943. (w:ru:Воин России)
The tag that was used (c:Template:PD-Russia-1996). The rationale they are going for is probably "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication."
Without the magazine, no way to tell if the photographer was credited or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate of Commons. I see no reason stated that this photo isn't PD though. It's clearly an official photo (probably for a personnel file) and would, therefore, have been published in a number of formats. Authorship would not be readily available. Buffs (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
reduce size and quality, upload to wiki as opposed to commons, tag as non-free. Given the terms and conditions imposed when you visit 15.ai's website, its fair to assume there is some kind of copyright on this. Reduce size and quality, upload to wiki as non-free. Website T&Cs below:
This project (15.ai) is intended for non-commercial use. There are two requirements for using 15.ai for personal projects:
You MUST properly credit "15.ai." Including the URL "15.ai" somewhere in your post/video/project/etc. is sufficient.
You MUST NOT use 15.ai voices with other TTS voices within your project. This is to prevent any confusion between 15.ai and other TTS projects.
All code and models used for this website were written and trained as part of my research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The code and models are privately owned and are not to be sold or distributed for unauthorized use.
All requests are logged — including information about input text and character selection — in order to help the model learn from its mistakes using the generations that were scored the worst to learn better sentence cohesion and contextual prosody. All logs are expunged after being fed back into the model because I value your privacy and have no interest in reading through millions of lines of depravity.
Keep. The author of the image has released it under CC BY-SA 4.0. The website's terms and conditions are irrelevant as they only apply to audio created using 15.ai, not the image. --91.129.110.240 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as fair use Derivative of copyrighted work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sample is used to identify specific segments of the song, not the whole song itself. May fail WP:NFCC#8 unless I stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, song samples can only be used where they are supporting critical commentary. Simple inclusion in the infobox with no wording does not satisfy WP:NFCC>>Lil-unique1(talk) — 21:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too similar to the main cover art which is also non-free and is the primary identification for the article. There is no rational that justifies the additional non-free cover art. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 10:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot of Rihanna in the music video of Paranoid (Kanye West song) merely displays her in the music video. It doesn't help readers understand the music video (as a whole) or the song, so it may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rational does not clarify why the image is needed to convey something which can easily be done so in words. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 21:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image claimed to be freely licensed and is sourced from a blogspot post indicating that the image is freely licensed, but this looks like a publicity photo and can be widely found all over the internet. I doubt very much that the blogger who posted the image on their blog is the actual copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I did a reverse image search on this and it does appear that the image is widely used and available but hard to ascertain the original source. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 21:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarked with RD Design and Associates, this looks to be conceptual art from an architectural firm. VRT confirmation of that the uploader truly has the rights would be needed. Whpq (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Watermarked and no evidence permission has been sought to use the image. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 21:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source website indicates "All rights reserved." I could find no evidence this image was ever freely licensed. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary on these specific notes on Singapore dollar, does not comply with WP:NFCC#8. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky, that article actually contains commentary on some specific notes. Feel free to add images there (where appropriate, so not in the table) and add a fair use rationale to the associated file description page(s) for that article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz I have updated the article and added a fair use rationale to the associated file description page(s). Is this sufficient? – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jonteemil, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable declaring that PD-ineligible. Most individual elements would possibly be fine, but as a whole? I suppose this would be mostly about the apple in the top-left corner, the trash icon, the finder/system/etc computer icon and the SysVersion icon. And as the source is unknown, the placement of the windows (and which windows to show) could be considered a creative element as well. It would be a thin copyright, but I don't think I'm personally going to tag it as ineligible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The designs of the icons are very simple, using US standards. Below TOO for me but unknown what a court would rule.Jonteemil (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jonteemil, for the icons individually you're likely right, but does the thing as a whole amount to something greater? Another question could be that of whether elements are utilitarian, I think a basic scrollbar for example arguably is. Maybe Clindberg would have some interesting thoughts on this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to think some of those icons would qualify for copyright. Maybe they appeared in an advertisement without copyright notice before 1989, and lost their copyright that way, though we'd have to show that, and perhaps a registration on the software may have kept copyright anyways. I would have to guess it's above the threshold, but remains fine for fair use, so can't see a reason to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: No one wants it deleted. The discussion is about whether or not the file is copyrightable.Jonteemil (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: "Maybe they appeared in an advertisement without copyright notice before 1989, and lost their copyright that way"
You mean like these: [3][4][5]? All of the elements in this screenshot are in these ads. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the only argument for PD, to me -- that was subject to the conditions in 17 USC 405, to keep copyright. There likely was a copyright registration of the software which may cover the icons, but the other condition for keeping copyright may be arguable that Apple did not do. It would only be the icons which are in those ads, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be bold and say keep as PD I don't see the elements as anything beyond utilitarian, ergo, they don't have copyright for a screenshot any more than the headlights of a car or a wiring setup. However, I'm willing to be swayed. Buffs (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: What do you mean with keep? This is not a delete or keep situation, more like a relicense-as-free or remain-non-free situation.Jonteemil (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, the icons aren't utilitarian, they serve no function in and of themselves. (unlike a scrollbar or window border) They could be replaced with words, for example. Whether they are sufficiently detailed to be eligible for copyright protection in the US is another matter, but if Clindberg says "yes" I'm going with that and say we should keep this as fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are utilitarian. A folder or an image of a computer lets you know what clicking it will do. It is no different than an arrow or a bar. That's not to say an icon CANNOT attain copyright, merely "not these". Buffs (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, arrows and bars can also be eligible for copyright depending on their detail. A scrollbar or window border can't be replaced by words but arrows and icons can. Their function is merely to convey information. Scrollbars and window borders can also be eligible for copyright if sufficiently detailed, but their basic form is utilitarian. See this essay for some examples. What you are arguing is that these icons are below the threshold of originality for copyright. I initially thought that could be the case, but Clindberg said no and I trust Clindberg's judgment on this subject. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just let me make my own arguments instead, k? I never argued the icons were below TOO. I said they were utilitarian (which is a completely different argument). A car, for example, cannot be copyrighted because it is a utilitarian object. The same applies to a lightbulb, a headlight, or even a screwdriver. They easily pass the "Sweat of the brow" and "creative element" threshold, but still aren't eligible for copyright because they are utilitarian in nature. If your argument is "because I agree with Clindberg", I can't argue against that.
"arrows and bars can also be eligible for copyright depending on their detail"[citation needed] I'll save you some time: no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example.
"Scrollbars and window borders can also be eligible for copyright if sufficiently detailed"[citation needed] Again, no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example.
"their basic form is utilitarian", which is my point. Your argument that a scroll bar or window is utilitarian because they have a function is the same reason I'm saying that an icon has the exact same parameters and works in the same way.
Please don't conflate separate points (especially points I didn't make). Buffs (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, Why don't you just let me make my own arguments instead, k? I never argued the icons were below TOO. I said they were utilitarian (which is a completely different argument). K, if you insist. In that case you're just plain wrong.
I'll save you some time: no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example. VA0000021022, VAu001442705, VA0000677356, VA0000019446, VAu000302328, VAu000012646, VAu000415048, VA0001077782
Again, no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example. 1. Draw a cool snake 2. Use it as a scrollbar
same reason I'm saying that an icon has the exact same parameters and works in the same way Icons merely convey information, they are not functional. The only possible argument for them not being copyrightable is when they don't exceed the threshold of originality. (or the creator lives in Somalia)
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this really meet the treshold of originality needed for copyright protection? It seems like ((PD-simple)) for me, and if the design is free then the photograph can't be non-free, right? Jonteemil (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jonteemil, I doubt this much more. As Richard Tuttle says, "Each sheet consisting of a few strokes on low-grade loose leaf paper. The paints bleed and pooled, causing the paper to buckle, giving the works three-dimensionality." So the paper being buckled is intentional and part of the work. And if the work is indeed three-dimensional that means there are several other considerations for derivative works as well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting licensing information. File is tagged with free licenses, but description says "Use is allowed for non-commercial and educational purposes only." Image is not used outside user space. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a selfie of uploader and seems doubtful that the uploader is Joe Born himself --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of this person being JB himself nor of this photo being inappropriate (i.e. copyrighted). Images appear to match the appropriate person. The user name may simply be a fan. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is below the originality threshold of South Korea and will not be deleted for copyright issues. Vector version is also available. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it's been on Commons for several years. I removed the ((keep local)) tag I placed in 2015 but, although I don't think I'm WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather another admin deleted it. Thanks for the ping and all the best, Miniapolis 14:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur w/ nomBuffs (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Saikat M Wiki.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.
Contains FB metadata. Low quality. Doubtful own work. A possibly free-er version is available on commons as File:Saikat Wiki.jpg. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Non-free stamp with no proper rationale. The image is not subject of significant sourced commentary in the article and teh claime of " falls under fair use" is insufficient for non-free content. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free stamp with no proper rationale. The image is not subject of significant sourced commentary in the article and the claim of " falls under fair use" is insufficient for non-free content. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an own photograph by the uploader themselves. I think just the controller and pocket watch would be sufficient, as the box art is not needed as being redundant to one already on the article. Maybe someone can contact the uploader to release the image under free licence, but check if ((Photo of art)) or de minimis applies. Stylez995 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything here is largely utilitarian, IMHO, not artistic. For ANY artistic points, de minimis clearly/completely applies Buffs (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This specific image is not needed, as it doesn't greatly improve the Chinese paddlefish to see a specific images of its organs (which are barely mentioned on this article). Thus, it fails WP:NFCC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. We have free images of the fish itself as well Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are almost no images of the fish itself that are not dry taxidermies, whether fresh or in fluid. It would be essentially impossible to take an equivalent non-free version of this image due to the fish now being extinct. This is a pretty obscure close-up that has little liklihood of commercial significance (as opposed to the images of the full fish lying on the shore, which have been constantly used in news articles for instance). Electroreception likely played a key role in how the fish navigates its world and found prey, so I see it as a highly significant image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but more commentary would be useful. @Hemiauchenia:, could you add more information to both the article and the FUR? Buffs (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of a presumably copyrighted map. Permission from the cartographer is also required. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this as a derivative work as much as a poor reproduction. Permission from the cartographer is not additionally required, only the copyright holder. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by cartographer I meant the copyright holder of the map. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear copyvio. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not redundant. The other image shows the 3D redesigns of the characters that were introduced in Season 5 (which is why the caption says "in their 3D designs" and the page says "In 2012, new episodes of the series incorporated CGI-animated sequences that rendered the characters in 3D."). The original image shows the original 2D designs of the characters as shown in the previous seasons. It's one image for the 2D designs and one image for the 3D redesigns. TheFallenPower (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Uploader trying to explain what they're doing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist comment@TheFallenPower: Can you add a reliably sourced mention of the artstyle being changed across the show's lifespan? The image could then be used to help illustrate this change. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I added a source that says "The fairies have evolved from Straffi’s original hand-drawn characters, to 3D CGI iterations". TheFallenPower (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think an image of the final drawn characters makes sense to include. Failing to include them would do a disservice to the article; one such image is sufficient. What if we had an article about Mickey Mouse without a single picture of him? Now, the sketches done by one of the artists...I think it has SOME merit, but I'd be much more likely to delete that over this. Buffs (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a statement at the source (Amitabh Bachchan's Twitter feed) to indicate that this image is available under a CC-compatible license. Kinut/c 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 "===July 26===" 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.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+July+21%23File%3AIvan+Semyonovich+Polbin+%28General-major+of+Aviation+in+the+Soviet+Air+Forces%2C+born+1905%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+July+22%23File%3ABlackstar+%28Front+Cover%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+July+22%23File%3ACSI+Mall+%28San+Carlos+City%2C+Pangasinan%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+July+24%23File%3AGreenDragon-Logo-Horizontal-Remake2018+TransparentBackground+copy+%282%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2022+July+26%23File%3AI+Am+Me+%28mixtape%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
