Hungarian works by official authorities (governmental works aren't copyrighted. Kys5g talk! 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? I don't understand how that's a reason to delete the logo. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nomination proposes to relicense the logo as free, not to delete it.
According to the Commons page on Hungarian copyright rules, only edicts of government are exempt from copyright. We seem to derive that city coats of arms are exempt since they are introduced by explicit regulations. Do we know whether this is also the case for the logo at hand? As a secondary matter, do we have a source for the vectorisation? If not done automatically, the svg rendering may well also bear program copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not being used on infobox, it is rather being used at the bottom of the article to merely illustrate the first season. Thus fails WP:NFCC8 as it isn't really contextually significant. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I have now moved the file into the infobox, since the file that was there was deleted as having being uploaded by a now banned editor. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I have now moved the file into the infobox, since the file that was there was deleted as having being uploaded by a now banned editor. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image appears to be a slightly-cropped version of one used at this Radyo Veritas online article, dated
January 27, 2024 (1:29 pm). Notice the orange-reddish effect at the far right edge that bears striking identical similarity to the original image online. Suspected copyvio. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 09:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the two photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the three photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 10:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted sculpture. The description itself speaks for itself: "The Redemption 1974 by Eduardo Castrillo". No FoP in the Philippines, and more so, violation of U.S. copyright law. Enwiki follows only U.S. FoP, but U.S. FoP does not extend to public monuments. Worse, it is caught by pre-1978 date for establishment of U.S. copyright over Philippine artistic works courtesy of Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), and was still copyrighted on the URAA date for the Philippines (January 1, 1996). Copyvio, image should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Will remain under U.S. copyright for 95 more years (1974+95+1=January 1, 2070) JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's lifted here, to double check I checked the current 2024 500 Rs. Banknote and it's the same except for the state bank guy, perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, could you please elaborate?
Architectural photos uploaded by an employee of Ian Ritchie Architects (per User talk:Alex Johns#Ian Ritchie (architect), User talk:Alex Johns#Checking copyright status). One photo has a copyright notice in the description. Based on their talk page history the uploader has uploaded many other clear copyright violations, and these all seem to be photos copyrighted by the firm or photographer, which the employee does not have ability to release under a free license. Consigned (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC: not discussed critically or needed for educational value, purely ornamental in the infobox, where there is already non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Template:Extra album cover#Template:Extra album cover: "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". The article in which this file is used (The Tortured Poets Department) is an album that was released as both a standard album and a double album edition, and the cover for the double album edition (this one) is absolutely necessary for readers' understanding.
Keep. Album cover is NOT ornamental, this is the cover for The Anthology double album (31 tracks), and is discussed via any mention of The Anthology in the article. The standard edition cover is only representative of the standard album (the first 16 tracks). Theknine2 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do see this as a unique case where the double album has garnered a significant amount of prominence and significance. The covers are substantially different, and it is difficult to declare one of them more important than the other.--NØ 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all previous arguments. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TTPD is marketed as a double album. It is normal for it to have two album covers. They also look totally different. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: purely ornamental in the infobox and not discussed critically or needed for educational value? Do you know about a double album cover? Kys5g talk! 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "not discussed critically" is a claim purely unfounded, because The Anthology, with that exact same cover artwork, has been reviewed separately in its own right by multiple publications (with many critics having drastically different artistic opinions on it), even has a separate Metacritic page with that image, and has charted independently as a separate album entry in some official national charts with that image (outpeaking the standard in some markets). Additionally, this is not the first time a Swift album simply has a different artwork other than the standard; all of her albums, including the recent Midnights and 1989 (Taylor's Version), have had cover artwork variants. But what makes The Anthology an unique case is that it is simply not a variant, but a double album re-issue, with a new set of songs worthy of a whole new album annexed to it.
Delete, although I'm clearly in the minority in agreeing with the nominator (@Koavf), the 'Anthology' cover art did not receive significant coverage in the same way that the primary/initial artwork did. Although the strength of feeling about the imagery being different is noted, the actual second cover art did not generate critical commentary in the same way that the first one did. No one will look back in years to come and lament the exclusion of the cover art. There's a slight tendancy with popular artists like Taylor Swift and Dua Lipa for fans and editors (because the articles attract large editing communities) to swamp discussions about the necessity of multiple non-free media items. I am absolutely assuming WP:AGF and in no way claim that its a pile on by fans, but if you look at the WP:NFCC rules objectively, I do not believe the arguments given for keeping the second cover go beyond "the second version of the album received critical coverage", the actual imagery of the second cover art did not receive enough critical coverage to warrant "necessity otherwise exclusion harms reader understanding" which is the basic premise for multiple cover arts. I fear this is done decision because of the strength of feeling for keep, but objectively I don't think its warranted IMO. The second version of the album being discussed and reviewed isn't relevant to making the 2nd cover art necessary, notability isn't inherited. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 17:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep This double album cover is also used in the current The Eras Tour poster. It is worth adding to this page so that more people can realize that the photo of the poster belongs to this cover.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.75.191.37 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+May+5%23File%3ALogo+of+the+National+Assembly+%28Hungary%29.svg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+May+5%23File%3ANath+%E2%80%93+Zewar+Ya+Zanjeer+%28title+card%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2024+May+5%23File%3APlymouth+Theatre+Royal+Production+Centre+%28TR2%29.JPG%5D%5D){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
