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: Status quo, no change to non-free status. -FASTILY 00:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free, seems to be way to much going on in this logo for it to fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Salavat: In the US, any use of typeface or text is not protected by copyright regardless of how complex the lettering appears. Other examples of complex text-logos that are not protected by copyright are File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, File:Sonic Runners logo.png, and File:Subway restaurant.svg, which are all on Commons. It isn't necessarily an issue of TOO but rather a blanket rule that logos composed of purely text cannot be copyrighted. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-free. The rap battles logo has more elements than any of the other logos that have been mentioned. In particular the way "battles" is made to look damaged and the two things (what are they?) above and next to the word "epic". While it's true that typefaces are ineligible for copyright, this mostly concerns the outline of the letters. The rap battles logo may or may not be eligible for copyright protection, but I'm not comfortable making that call based on the Cyberpunk decision. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the elements around the word "epic" are meant to look like the result of a spray paint stencil. — Goszei (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2021 (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:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.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.
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Whpq per CSD criterion F7 as a press photo "from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary". Noting for the record that previous discussion on this topic has taken place here. FASTILY 03:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mentioned this before in the aforementioned discussion at User talk:Whpq#Are you auto tagging?, but there are three of the WP:NFCCP that are relevant here and not satisfying even one of them means the use isn't policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. The first thing to discuss here is WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) because Tuesdee Testa is still living and non-free images are pretty much never allowed for still-living persons when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox. This has been pretty much a long standing interpretation of WP:FREER that goes back a number of years and there are very few exceptions to this. The use of this photo is sort of like (not exactly but sort of similar) the type of non-free use described in item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI; so, NFCC#1 is the first hurdle that needs to be cleared. The next issue has to do with WP:NFCC#2. Once again, the long standing consensus seems to be not use any non-free image sourced to commercial agencies like Getty and AP unless the image itself is specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary. Such files are almost always speedily deleted per WP:F7 because the are almost never considered to meet NFCC#2. That's why the file was tagged for speedy deletion and why it was deleted so quickly. So, if NFCC#2 also needs to be satisfied. The third criterion that is an issue is WP:NFCC#8. This one is probably more subjective that the other two, but I still don't think it's being met. As explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC, there are lots of historic events, but not every photograph taken of such events is similarly historic. What Ms. Testa achieved is certainly important and even historic, but it's her achievement (not this photograph) which is historic and that's what's going to determine whether NFCC#8 is being met. If there's critical commentary specifically about this photo in reliable sources, then that would perhaps show that it's historic; if, however, it's just a photo or one of the photos that appeared in newspaper articles about what Ms. Testa and her accomplishment than I don't think NFCC#8 is being met. What's being discussed here isn't really whether Wikipedia use the file as fair use; it almost certainly can. However, fair use and Wikipedia's version of it are not one and the same as explained in WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:NFC#Background. So, what's being discussed here is whether the file's use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which basically means whether it satisfies all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Nine out of ten isn't good enough; a particular use needs to meet all ten and there are three criteria where it's not clear that it does. Finally, in response to the statement our readers need to see a picture in order to identify and understand the subject of the article, I don't think that's true at all. I think images are nice and can enhance articles, but there are plenty of articles which don't have any images at all, and there are plenty of BLP articles which don't have even an infobox image because there are no freely available ones available. Perhaps that's something that should be changed, but that's a discussion for WT:NFCC or WT:IUP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, because Tuesdee Testa is still living and non-free images are pretty much never allowed for still-living persons when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox. The woman is 79 years old now. Assuming you could track her down for a photoshoot, would an image of a 79-year old woman really be a useful free replacement to identify a jockey? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a standard that I've created, but it's the one that seems to have been consistently applied over the years. There is currently a discussion about this kind of thing at WT:NFCC#Exemption proposal and there are almost certainly many more to be found in the WT:NFCC archives. If a person's appearance at a certain point in there life was the subject of sourced critical commentary or their Wikipedia notability is largely tied into their physical appearance, then perhaps an exception to NFCC#1 is warranted as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Other cases where one might be warranted are when someone is long-termed incarcerated, missing or a well-known recluse; however, just being old and not looking as they looked in their prime isn't generally considered a sufficient reason in and of itself. Perhaps it should be, but that again is a discussion for WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentoned on Whpq's user talk, Template:PD-US-no notice might be a possibility here, if not for this specific image than perhaps another one. In that case though an non-free image of Ms. Testa would certainly fail WP:NFCC#1 which means that this file (if it needs to be treated as non-free) couldn't be used regardless of whether it meets NFCC#2 or NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any copyright notice for the newspaper itself would suffice to cover a photo inside (other than advertisements); they are all part of the overall composite work. And if this was a UPI photo, not sure that any one particular newspaper forgetting the notice would be material -- if only a tiny percentage of copies was missing the notice, a work usually did not lose copyright. You would probably need to find copies distributed by UPI itself without the notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping by Alexis Jazz - my apologies, but I did not intentionally do anything that would be considered "not very nice" - it is not my nature. I've spent numerous hours researching articles at newspapers.com, and because I wanted to make things easy for all of us, I studied my search urls and discovered an image # in the first part of the url, so I have included only that part for your convenience, and hope it works. Please let me know because I am not certain it will work, especially for editors/readers who do not have a basic subscription to the site. I thought it was better to use the newspapers.com site rather than simply cite the news source itself. I also updated the url at the uploaded file, and made a few other updates relative to PD. I can easily change the license from fair use to PD so it is not necessary to delete the file. Also, keep in mind that basic subscriptions to newspapers.com include non-copyrighted material and the only way a researcher can see copyrighted material at that site is to purchase a premium subscription, which leaves me out. In retrospect, it does appear that the image is PD per copyright law because it does not include the copyright notice which you alluded to above, and it was published prior to 1978 - so there is no liability on behalf of WP. The newspaper copyrights apply only to the presentation of the image with the article they published; i.e., the unique format or derivative images they may have created or published. A PD image itself is a PD image, regardless of where it is published. Based on some of the delete arguments, I am now wondering if other legitimate images have been deleted based on the same or similar reasons - and I must say that it is not a good sign when we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Collaboration/inclusion is key to building whereas resistance/deletion for no valid reason is quite the opposite. Atsme💬📧 14:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The image is from the Associated Press. That is not under dispute. As a press agency image, the established policy for use as a non-free image is that the image itself must be the subject of significant sourced commentary. The article has no significant sourced commentary about the photo. A caption for the photo is commentary about the event that the photo depicts and is not commentary about the photo itself. Fails WP:NFCC#2, and WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of accuracy - it was not API; rather it was distributed by UPI without a copyright symbol on the image. See the file to verify. I have also included several links of the image being published without a copyright symbol which places it into the public domain. See my comments above. Atsme💬📧 20:43, 17 June 2021 (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:Omotola's signature.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.
This file was deleted on Wikimedia Commons because it was not considered to be public domain. It is "an autograph signed by Omotola Jalade Ekeinde" so it is from a primary source. Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons says "Copying a signature from a primary source may be a misuse of the source and a breach of privacy." Pack My Box (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't verify if this is legit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:20, 18 June 2021 (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: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this has a valid fair use rationale. My main problem is with the purpose in the article as I don't think that it is at all necessary to include this in the article as it does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this use, I think the poster increases reader understanding by conveying information on Hololive's branding, in particular its unique Japanese idol/J-pop marketing. This aspect has been the subject of critical commentary in RS ([1]), currently quoted in the article as a major part of the agency's success so far: [Hololive has] harnessed the entertainment value of both streaming and J-pop idol groups. I believe that the current visual identification rationale I had added should be replaced by this critical commentary rationale, as per WP:NFCI#4's instruction on non-free posters. — Goszei (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most people don't know what a VTuber is or what they look like. An article about them needs to show some kind of visual representation. I think Goszei's FUR is sufficient. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the NFCC#8 reason either in line with the nom, especially given this isn't in the article's infobox, and what exactly it's identifying remains unclear in the article. Not bolding a vote due to a lack of confidence as someone without any subject matter expertise making an independent judgement. SportingFlyerT·C 22:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the alt rationale that I proposed in my comment? — Goszei (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The image itself is a huge group of the virtual personalities and is not justified by any significant sourced commentary. As used, it fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. As for having people not knowing what a Vtuber is or what they look like, Virtual YouTuber is the solution to that. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - en.WP is not Commons which requires free licensing. This is fair use for inclusion in an encyclopedia which is an educational resource. The image has been reduced, and I am not convinced by the delete arguments to not include it under our fair use policy. Atsme💬📧 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have indicated, there's significant discussion and commentary in the article about the concert that this is promoting and the VTubers themselves. Thus, I think the non-free use rationale is validly stated. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (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.
I uploaded the Aussie side label image as intended replacement to the French single picture sleeve (discogs, ebay). Somehow, the uploader of the French image thought it's an "official cover art" and then reverted my replacement. I decide to take them both here and discuss them. If using both images violates WP:NFCC, particularly #3a and/or #8, then let's choose either one. I would prefer the Australian side label especially to represent the singer's nationality, yet the song was an international hit. I guess someone else would prefer the picture sleeve, which both Australian and American releases lacked, probably because (to me) it's more appealing to the masses. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (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.
