The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kolya Butternut (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is sourced to https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-art-artisan-artist-1486470/ which has an free license but with commercial restrictions. The license terms does allow for some commercial use but not all commercial use. The license is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia and is certainly not CC0 as claimed by the uploader.as tagged by a subsequent editor. Whpq (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will hold off on uploading photos until I get a better sense of this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which which bit of the Pexels license terms resricts commercial use? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RHaworth:Under a section on what you cannot do they state "Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value." which is a restriction on some commercial use. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the license is fine but we don't need to figure that out here. Since Commons allows Pexel imports and has a {pexel-cc-zero} license template for this situation, I moved the photo to Commons. It can be deleted from Wikipedia as it is now an orphaned file anyway and I will CSD-F8 this file now as it is a duplicate of a Commons file. Leviv ich 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license is still problematic. You need to look at the details of the pexels CC0 license at Commons. The license applies only for those files that can be shown to have been published prior to 4 July 2018 as they changed from CC-zero to their current not free enough license. See also this discussion on Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand, but the issue is whether the "Photographed on" date is considered the publication date, or if we assume a post-4 July 2018 publication date because we don't have an explicit publication date on Pexels. If the latter, then we can't use any Pexels pics unless they're explicitly marked CC0. In any event, we're having this conversation at the Commons DR, so I think everyone is in agreement that this particular file can be speedy-deleted F8 as a duplicate. (Also it's now an orphan.) Leviv ich 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The photographed date is not the publication date. And as for qualifying for WP:F8, one of the conditions for F8 is that the "image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt" at Commons, which is not the case. -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the case because you nominated the file for deletion at Commons :-) Which, perhaps, would have been better to do after the Wikipedia version had been deleted. Nonetheless, if you think the F8 now doesn't apply, feel free to remove it. Leviv ich 02:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to commons According to official Pexels license, commercial use is allowed except for things such as selling the image. Use on Wikipedia does not meet any of the criteria of disallowed use. Also, Commons does allow images from Pexels (has a category and license template for images from Pexels).

Delete Even though use on Wikipedia complies with Pexel license on commercial use, it does have some restrictions and Wikipedia generally does not consider files with commercial restrictions as free images. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Atomicdragon136: did you read the above discussion? If this type of commercial use is disallowed, then it's a non-free license. Files on Wikipedia/Commons need to be free (meet the Definition of Free Cultural Works). It's not about our use, it's about what we allow our re-users to do. That's why we don't accept any licenses that disallow commercial use, even though Wikipedia itself is entirely non-commercial. And Commons only allows files that were on Pexels before 4 July 2018 (see c:Template:Pexels-Cc-zero). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Finnusertop: Sorry I did not fully read it. Thank you for letting me know, I am changing my vote to delete. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Images that pose licensing burdens on reusers beyond those inherent to the CC license are generally not acceptable here unless they are fair use. I do not believe a decision to accept a new non-commercial license, even one that allows certain commercial uses but not others, is in the best interests of the project, and I do not believe that this image is important enough to us to seriously consider it to be an exceptional case. UninvitedCompany 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence that the file has been published under a free license (ie. published on Pexels before 4 July 2018). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Laith al jazi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monica Elfriede Witt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pahlevun (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The source provided does not identify this as a product of the United States Air Force, merely that it was released—not produced—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be a rough consensus that images from FBI posters are fair game as PD and this is pretty obviously her official Air Force photo. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point us to this "rough consensus" that says images distributed by the FBI are therefore their copyright? As for being an AF photo, the USAF (and other branches of the US military) often contract out their portrait photography, so an image that's 'courtesy the US Air Force' isn't necessarily theirs unless there's a photography credit to verify that. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is contracted then it would be a work for hire and the copyright would fall back to the US. Let me dig up some discussions. I was looking through our articles about people who have reached the most wanted list and about half of them use photos from the wanted poster. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's my understanding that work performed by a contracted entity remains the copyright of that entity. I interpreted that as the determination of this Commons deletion discussion. This 2011 discussion as well as my own experience with these third-party contractors are my touchstone for the unreliability of saying any US federally-distributed image is theirs and PD. — fourthords | =Λ= | 06:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As always with contracts, it depends on the specific terms of the specific contracts. At one point various interest groups were arguing that the contracts should be reformed so that everything produced is PD, but I don't know if that every went anywhere. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no solid evidence that this the work of a US government employee. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beach on central coast.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lopeters12 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed to be from Commons, the provided source link leads to a different picture. Also, the PD licensing claim is invalid. Commons accepts a variety of free licenses so just because it came from Commons, it is not necessarily PD. Whpq (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of permission. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCI Logo 2018.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SportsFan007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Logo falls under threshold of originality Atomicdragon136 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Atomicdragon136: what do you mean? SportsFan007 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
  • User:Atomicdragon136 is essentially saying that this logo is in the public domain because it is not original enough. So then the logo can be re-licensed as such instead of being licensed as non-free. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportsFan007: The logo falls under the threshold of originality due to it consisting entirely of text and simple rectangles, it can be relicensed as public domain and moved to Commons. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relicense to pd-logo and move to Commons. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: That logo is from the comany’s website. SportsFan007 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[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.