This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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 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  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
  • 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 here

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this page. 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=2018 July 17}} 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=2018 July 17}} 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=2018 July 17}} 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 1920, not 1926.
  • 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.

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation

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 discussions

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

Old discussions

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations

July 11

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg

File:Donald Andrew Bess Jr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Gnome (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The permission parameter, U.S. criminal law stipulates that police arrest records are public property and, as such, can be assessed once an individual is arrested and fingerprinted is completely untrue for state level photos. Federal photos, sure. As all works created by federal employees during the course of their duties is in the public domain. But not state level photos. Only certain states put things in the public domain and Texas isn't one of them. Majora (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I was aware of Texas passing legislation obliging legal entities that were in the business of publishing mugshots to take them down when requested to do so, without charging a fee for that. In the relevant bill from 2013, there is this piece of language: Criminal record information published by a business entity is considered...accurate if the information...was obtained by the entity from a law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency, including the Department of Public Safety, or any other governmental agency or entity within the 60-day period preceding the date of publication. Since there is no mention of restrictions on publishing in general of aforesaid "criminal record information" (which includes mugshots), I am or was under the impression that the mugshots are in the public domain. But, of course, if the case is as you present it above then the uploaded image should come down. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, The Gnome, I'm afraid that as far as I know there isn't an exception for mugshots. Harvard copyright center also does not show any exceptions for these types of photos. It is gray and there are binding examples of state works that are copyrightable in Texas. So we can't assume. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, Majora. I'll have to study a bit. -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you point me to this consensus, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz so I can modify my patrolling in the future? I know that articles on the person could potentially fall under fair use but we don't have an article directly on Donald Bess. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you please clarify, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? Are you saying that only the "use rationale is incorrect" and that if the rationale is changed the image can be kept? Or that the image should be discarded in any case? -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can't say with certainty what consensus practice is. Consensus appears to support inclusion of nonfree images of murder victims in articles centered on their killers, but I'm not sure how sound that consensus is. I don't know whether the converse holds, and am hoping to see some discussion on both situations here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majora (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Map of Upstate Connecticut.PNG

File:Map of Upstate Connecticut.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kotosb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

From an article on 'Upstate Connecticut', deleted as a nonexistent concept, a likely invention of the creator. Out of scope. —innotata 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Kotorian.jpg

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

Unused userspace image. —innotata 06:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Kotorianemblen.gif

File:Kotorianemblen.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kotosb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused userspace image. —innotata 06:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Siol nan Gaidheal constitution.jpg

File:Siol nan Gaidheal constitution.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zcbeaton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Leaflet copyright is most likely held by the organisation that distributed it. There's no obvious evidence presented as to why this could be relicensed under a 'self' claim. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Is there an applicable fair use case for this image - recognising SnG's copyright but keeping it on the page? Zcbeaton (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
If it meets NFCC., I'd also suggest including a note on the file description page indicating in context, why Wikipedia includes 'political' material like this ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see any case for a conversion to fair use. --Whpq (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sanitationstrikemarker.jpg

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

This was uploaded under a self-claim, but the credit line is to "(Photo: Southern Hollows podcast, [www.southernhollows.com])", and checking that source did not lead to a confirmation of CC style license. A clarification would be desirable, as the image is clearly relevant to the article in which it appears. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Also File:MemphisSanitationTruckSouthernHollows.jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added the photographer credit to the description, as well as to source and author. Colonelinfo —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Um, is the license still correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the license is correct. I took the picture. Colonelinfo —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:CottonMillFounder.jpg

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

Per deletion discussion at Commons, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cotton Mill Founder statue, Vaasa University.jpg, sculpture is not copyright-free, and no FoP in Finland. Possibly okay under NFCC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep as fair-use for August Alexander Levón as the only image we have of the long-dead subject of that article. But remove from University of Vaasa, where it would be easy to take a picture of the building from a perspective that did not have the non-free sculpture. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:War Memorial Harby Leicestershire.jpg

File:War Memorial Harby Leicestershire.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ruddingtonsmith (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Missing authorship and publication information. We have a free image of this monument at File:War memorial, Harby (geograph 5168499).jpg. Kelly hi! 16:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:St Mary's Church, Earl Stonham (B&W).jpg

File:St Mary's Church, Earl Stonham (B&W).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sqdge (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, unclear whether uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Roxy Peterson.jpg

File:Roxy Peterson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Roxye33pr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused userspace image. —innotata 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Wendbreakwr.jpg

File:Wendbreakwr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cape cod naturalist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Needs specific sourcing—Creative Commons licenses require attribution of the author, and we need to know it was released under CC-BY, not under a more restrictive license. —innotata 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Herringgull.jpg

File:Herringgull.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cape cod naturalist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Needs specific sourcing—Creative Commons licenses require attribution of the author, and we need to know it was released under CC-BY, not under a more restrictive license. —innotata 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Kingman-az-map.gif

File:Kingman-az-map.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Americasroof (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Redundant to File:Kingman-az-map.jpg (not an ideal format but neither is this). —innotata 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Riverside Superior Court Spec.jpg

File:Riverside Superior Court Spec.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brien Clark (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned and so uninformative / low quality as to be out of scope. —innotata 23:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Troth Yeddha'.png

File:Troth Yeddha'.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gholton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

US work stated to be public domain due to lack of a copyright notice or registration, but that only applies to works from before 1977. Since then copyright has been automatic, and this photo is stated to be from 1985. —innotata 23:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File:PelicansonFedBuilding.JPG

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

Orphaned, blurry image of sculpture that is presumably copyrighted. —innotata 23:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12

File:Forest Cobra.png

File:Forest Cobra.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ishraq95 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder. There is no EXIF data on this image. The uploader has engaged in deliberate copyright violations with images now deleted where he uploaded images claiming they were from his mobile phone but were in fact the images were copied for the internet but reversed and cropped, presumably to evade detection through reverse image searching, Whpq (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:AlaskaHallOfGovernors.jpg

File:AlaskaHallOfGovernors.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wasted Time R (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo of presumably copyrighted photos. —innotata 04:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment My theory in uploading this was, and is, that the distance from each individual photo, combined with the odd angle and the many reflections of light in the room, made the potential for copyright violation negligible. The image is intended to convey the historical progression of governors, not any individual one. Perhaps I should have uploaded it under a fair use license, and I would have no objection if it were switched to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Incidental appearance of copyrighted material can be allowable, but this is a photo where the subject is a set of copyrighted works. I highly doubt this qualifies for non-free use, don't see how it's essential and fits any non-free content criteria. —innotata 15:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Stjosephs.JPG

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

Needs better sourcing; was this really taken by Anthony Dimond in the course of any official duties as a federal government employee? —innotata 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tuzigoot from valley below.jpg

File:Tuzigoot from valley below.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhludzin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Vermilion cliffs.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhludzin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Museum of anthropology gift shop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bhludzin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The quoted email from the author just grants permission for use on Wikipedia, not a release into the public domain or under a free license as we require for free images. (Also if there was a proper release it should have be sent to WP:OTRS, which I believe was already required when this was uploaded.) —innotata 04:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Metropolitan Stadium aerial.JPG

File:Metropolitan Stadium aerial.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wahkeenah (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Is this non-free image needed when the public domain File:Metropolitan Stadium 1962.jpeg also exists? As you can see not that many readily visible changes were made between 1962 and 1981. —innotata 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is a free image available as pointed out in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Bryant Neighborhood Sign.jpg

File:Bryant Neighborhood Sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ihateswine (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably copyrighted photo of definitely copyrighted sign. The uploader (permanently blocked) implied he didn't take the photo, and made the claim that "my mother actually designed the content, so she is the copyright holder of the sign" but no more details provided. —innotata 04:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Craig MacGregor and Charlie Huhn.jpg

File:Craig MacGregor and Charlie Huhn.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sk8punk3d288 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Permission is not granted for all reuses and redistribution including commercially, so this is not public domain or any other class of free content for our purposes. —innotata 06:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cyanophage infecting cyanobacteria.gif

File:Cyanophage infecting cyanobacteria.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mehtab228 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence of permission at the YouTube video, which is clearly not the original source of this animation. —innotata 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Francesco Alberoni 003.jpg

File:Francesco Alberoni 003.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexxandros (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unclear from the description who the author is. —innotata 07:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:H&R Factory Postcard.jpg

File:H&R Factory Postcard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whipaway (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably public domain, but with no date or other such details, this cannot be confirmed. —innotata 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:325 Bowery at Second Street, The Tin Palace Windows on the Bowery placard.jpg

File:325 Bowery at Second Street, The Tin Palace Windows on the Bowery placard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ogmany (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence of permission from creator of this flyer - or from creators of the copyrighted images used in it, presumably including a record label. —innotata 08:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Annie old.jpg

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

No explanation given of how this image is public domain. —innotata 08:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Ahmed Hussen House of Commons.jpg

File:Ahmed Hussen House of Commons.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lucia Colicchio (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the Canadian Parliament are not automatically public domain as far as I know. —innotata 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Ed Forchion April 2016 mug shot.jpg

File:Ed Forchion April 2016 mug shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Hammer of Thor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:San Marcos Seven mug shots.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Hammer of Thor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyrighted mugshot with no fair use rationale, and that probably does not qualify for fair use they are of living people. There's also the argument that copyright in mugshots is unconstitutional appended, but no court has ruled such (or been asked to) as far as I know. —innotata 08:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Frog smile.gif

File:Frog smile.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Atsme (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not clear that the website is the original source of the animation or the photo used to make it. —innotata 08:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My research prior to download did not reveal a potential copyvio - there was nothing else like it online prior to the date Gabriel uploaded it on June 27, 2012, and only 2 subsequent instances since, excluding the upload here. There are actually 3 sites linking to/from the Daily Beautiful Gifs site at Animated pix which is linked to their FB page, and to the Arts & Humanities FB page where a variety of artists/animators participate. I agree that those sites lack the customary licensing formalities we're accustomed to seeing at Pixabay or Flickr, but considering the web hosts (Google & FaceBook) are sensitive to copyvio, the gif has existed on those sites since 2012 as 100% free. Atsme📞📧 17:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: thought this chart might be handy. Atsme📞📧 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
A quick Google Image search finds a use of the GIF from 2008, and it's unlikely the GIF's creator (whoever that is) took the photos. Also, there's no statement that the GIF website is CC-zero anyway. Social media and GIF sites host a lot of copyright violations to say the least, and they can host images that are fair use, which Wikipedia chooses not to except where particularly useful for articles. —innotata 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, the wordpress site sheds some new light on it for me. Since the image is stripped of all identifying meta data, the animation blogger could just as easily add a CC0 tag on his site to go along with the 100% free claim - not for us to speculate, but even if there was, there'd be no way we could prove he wasn't the author/copyright owner. There is a guy on Linked-in with the same name who produces tv commercials, so it might be him. I just sent him an email to find out, but I'm not optimistic. Atsme📞📧 02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Hannabarberameeting.jpg

File:Hannabarberameeting.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jerrylewis528 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No information on original source or explanation of how this is public domain. —innotata 08:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:John F. Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy, George H. Mead and others, at Charleston, South Carolina, 1942.jpg

File:John F. Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy, George H. Mead and others, at Charleston, South Carolina, 1942.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Barnabywoods (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photographer and first publication are unknown, so whether this photo is public domain cannot be determined. Being held by NARA does not always imply being public domain. —innotata 08:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Luis Munoz Marin postage stamp 1990.jpg

File:Luis Munoz Marin postage stamp 1990.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BobCC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Post-1978 US postage stamps are copyrighted and this dates to 1990. —innotata 08:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Map of Green Zone, Metro Vancouver LRSP, 1999.png

File:Map of Green Zone, Metro Vancouver LRSP, 1999.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pegwong (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claimed to be exempt from copyright but neither maps nor works of government are exempt from copyright in Canada. —innotata 08:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Map of Hinthada District.jpg

File:Map of Hinthada District.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ekyaw (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Burmese government works are copyright for 50 years after creation, see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Burmainnotata 08:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Stephie.jpg

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

Unused personal image, so out of scope. I will also note that I consider the content of the image to be questionable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Amritsarairport9.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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. F9 Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Amritsarairport9.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gkmand127 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Suspected copyright violation - the sky has been taken from [www.exprimeviajes.com] Batternut (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a copyvio. Image was tweeted from the airport's official twitter feed on June 9. --Whpq (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (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.

File:Vivariatower56.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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. F9 Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Vivariatower56.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gkmand127 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyright vio of image at https://www.99acres.com/4-bhk-bedroom-apartment-flat-for-sale-in-k-raheja-vivarea-agripada-mumbai-south-4280-sq-ft-spid-P37383691?pos=SEARCH Batternut (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2018 (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.

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg

File:Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of the threshold of originality question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of Art.jpg

File:'Red Canvas' by Richard Tuttle, 1967, Corcoran Gallery of Art.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wmpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vague nomination rationale and an equally vague keep argument; are there any policy- or guideline-based arguments in favour of or against any specific use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.jpg

File:Richard Diebenkorn's painting 'Ocean Park No.129'.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wpearl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free use, including galleries. Not all uses satisfy the contextual significance criterion. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and all those visual art images below...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove from "Late modernism" and possible keep for "Color Field". File is being currently used in two articles: Late modernism#Late modernist painting and sculpture in the 21st century and Color Field#Legacy: influences and influenced.

    The non-free use in the "Late modernism" article seems pretty hard to justify per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Item 3 of the non-free use rationale provided for this particular use claims "The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image" seems like simple boilerplate language since the painting is not even mentioned a single time by name throughout the article, not even in the file's caption, and the artist who painted in mentioned by name three times. There's no real context for the file's non-free use, at least nothing which seems to required by NFCC#8. Omitting the image from the file cannot be detrimental to the reader's understanding if there's no tangible connection between article content and image; moreover, those reading the article for the first time are most likely not even going to notice that the file is no longer there. This type of decorative non-free use in image galleries is contrary to policy in both terms of how its actually written and its intent. If more substantial content related to the image can be added to the article to establish a connection between image and text which establishes how this particular image is a representative example of this type of genre or period, then perhaps non-free use might be justifiable; however, simply adding a non-free image to a gallery of other non-free images and assuming that the reader will just automatically unequivocably see it as represenative examples and understand its significance is sort of an image-type of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This might be fine for a freely-licensed/PD image or even per fair use, but WP:NFCC requires a much higher standard be met per WP:NFC#Background. Suggest remove from "Late modernism".

    The use in "Color Field" is a bit trickier to assess. The painting is actually mentioned by name in Color Field#Color Field movement as an important example of this style; however, the content is unsourced, so it's not clear whether it's a kind of WP:VNT, WP:OR, or WP:SYN. Moreover, the painting is actually being used in a later section titled "Legacy: influences and influenced" far removed from the relevant article content. I'm not sure why this is the case, but non-free content is better off placed close to the relevant content whenever possible. Perhaps the location of the painting has to do with the file's caption, but that is unsourced which means it should be treated as OR and SYN. There are multiple non-free examples given in the "Color Field movement" section, so it's not clear why this particular one is needed. The non-free use rationale provided for the use is also problematic per WP:NFCC#10c because it doesn't really clarify how this particular use of the file in this particular article satisfies the NFCCP; the rationale is basically just a copy-and-paste effort whose only real difference from the other rationales on the file's page is the name of the article where the file is being used. Whoever added the rationales to the files page obviously seems to feel that WP:JUSTONE and simply wanting to use the file in any article is a sufficient justification for non-free use, as if non-free use of this type is de-facto automatic in some way, without addressing the differences in the file's actual non-free use. Still, I suggest this use as a possible keep since this does seem to be the best place to use the file. I think the following is needed, however, to further strengthen the justification for non-free use: The rationale should be clarified better and the image should be removed closer to the relevant article content (the OR from the caption should be removed as well IMHO) with more about the painting including citations to reliable sources which clearly state its importance as representative example being added to the relevant section as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Oldnav.jpg

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

This was at one point tagged as having an OTRS confirmation, but that tag was seemingly removed. FFD refferal as a 1921 postcard isn't necessarily out of copyright in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It has OTRS permission - as it needed it before being awarded Featured Article status. But if you want to ruin the article - then fine, go ahead. == Myosotis Scorpioides (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A postcard from 1921 would probably fall under PD-1923-abroad unless it was pulished years later, which is unlikely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep public domain in the United States as it was postmarked before 1923 and postcards were considered to published works at the time. If there's no statement of authorship on it, I assume it's public domain in the UK as well but all we need on English Wikipedia is for it to be public domain in the US. —innotata 15:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:SIHM logo.png

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

This appears to be an organisational logo, the connection between said organisation and the uploader is by no means clear on the file description page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: File:SIHM_LOGO_VECTORISE.pdf would also need to be deleted. The explicit CC0 license and the existence of that vectorized PDF appear to indicate that it is actually an "own work" that is really meant to be in the public domain. I'm unsure, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Good evening. I study at SIHM and would like to give some information about the institute like no other and its professors. So, first I asked for the authorization and today I have its administrator approval to use its logo in Wikipedia. Please write me, if I should to do something else. Thank you. Asato ma sadgamaya (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyright materials ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Asato ma sadgamaya (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Prisoner Weeknd Art.png

File:Prisoner Weeknd Art.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TomasTomasTomas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, non official. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tell Your Friends Art.png

File:Tell Your Friends Art.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TomasTomasTomas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, non official. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Artist's depiction of al-Jahith on a Qatar postage stamp.jpg

File:Artist's depiction of al-Jahith on a Qatar postage stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alanelbaum (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Needs documentation that Qatari stamps are not copyrighted. —innotata 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg

File:1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maestrale (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is dated to 1956. Photographs with an unknown creator are only public domain in Australia if taken before 1955, and are copyrighted in the United States unless taken before 1946 - see Template:PD-Australia. —innotata 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Arturo P. Alcaraz.jpg

File:Arturo P. Alcaraz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jollibinay (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of the Philippine government are indeed public domain, see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#The_Philippines. However, it isn't clear whether this photo was made by the Philippine government or simply reused by them. —innotata 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Brent Portrait.png

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

Being 30 years old does not make a photo public domain. This very much remains copyrighted. —innotata 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Bunnaloo Football Club logo.png

File:Bunnaloo Football Club logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HeyJude70 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Definitely copyrightable and dating to the 1980s, so automatically copyrighted globally. Might qualify for non-free use. —innotata 16:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dadra and Nagar Haveli map.jpg

File:Dadra and Nagar Haveli map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vivo78 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not exempt from copyright as stated. There are several alternative, freely licensed maps that can be used, see commons:Category:Maps of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. —innotata 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dimmitt meteorite.jpg

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

Impossible for copyright to have expired on a work from 10 years ago. —innotata 16:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • source indicates that image was copyright protected from 1994-2017. Samisles (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not what that means, it's just a reassertion of copyright. —innotata 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - invalid public domain reasoning. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Deakin Duck shield.png

File:Deakin Duck shield.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HeyJude70 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dating to the 1990s, so automatically copyrighted globally upon creation. Orphaned. —innotata 16:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Kairat Abdrakhmanov.jpg

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

Stated to be a Kazakhstani government photo, EXIF says it's a UN photo. Either way, this isn't automatically public domain. Does not qualify for non-free use. —innotata 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - EXIF makes it very clear this is a UN photo. The UN photo guidelines make it abundantly clear that this image is not under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tamsinastorlecture.jpg

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

This image was claimed originally as non-free and vaguely sourced to Facebook with no specific URL provided. When tagged as not having a fair use rationale to justify its use, the uploader claimed to be the copyright holder and declared it public domain. Proper sourcing and OTRS confirmation would be needed. Image was previously used a promo photo as seen in this google cache from 5 Jul 2018 21:45:52 GMT which predates this upload. Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Phoenix Science Center in Downtown Phoenix.jpg

File:Phoenix Science Center in Downtown Phoenix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DPPed (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not explained how this is public domain - works of a 'public organization' are not automatically PD. —innotata 18:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - invalid public domain reasoning -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Campus map of Holy Angel University.jpg

File:Campus map of Holy Angel University.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raphyortanez (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Definitely eligible for copyright and no indication it is free to use. —innotata 18:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrwsc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image does not need to be restricted in the way it is currently. From the article on the flag itself (emphasis added by me): "Although Namok has since died, the Torres Strait Islander Flag is still subject to copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The copyright was administered by the Island Coordinating Council until 2008, when that body was superseded by the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, which is willing to permit reproductions of the flag that are accurate and that acknowledge Namok as the designer." See Threshold of originality. The template {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} {{pd-textlogo}} is applicable here. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 20:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

We give permission for requests to reproduce the Torres Strait Islander Flag subject only under the following conditions:
  • where appropriate, recognition is given to the original designer, the late Mr Bernard Namok
  • original PMS colours are used
  • permission must be received in writing from us, prior to its use
Note especially the last line. This flag is clearly non-free. --AussieLegend () 20:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In your opinion. The original reason for nomination here is still invalid - the copyright notice clearly demonstrates restrictions beyond what you claimed and the image is still non-free in Australia. --AussieLegend () 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)re
User:AussieLegend, I think the legal position is complicated, with no obvious solution. I now admit to being the "lawyer" concerned (my professional reasons for dissociation no longer obtain) and I disclosed my identity to the copyright owners. I am not a specialist in copyright law, nor in US law of any kind, but I will attempt to assess the matter in general terms.
  1. I agree that the design is not a simple geometrical shape; so it should not be assumed to come within the non-originality exemption (which to my recollection is set out in US law but is not stated in Australian law).
  2. The first step was to seek permission, which was done and there has been no response. That silence might be seen as a waiver of the requirement for permission—an apparent choice not to exercise the right of copyright in this case. On the other hand, there was not actually a request from this publisher, WP; and, for that reason, it might be argued that there was not a valid request and so there could not have been a waiver. WP appears to be fulfilling the stated conditions for permission, but it is up to the copyright owner to decide whether those conditions are fulfilled.
  3. Another track might be that, although the request did not come from the publisher, it drew the copyright owner's attention to the fact that WP is using the image. The copyright owner then had an opportunity to object, through this page or at least the article's Talk page. There has been no such objection. That might be seen as constituting a waiver.
  4. These arguments do not seem to me to be conclusive. But there is also the factor that this is not simply private property: it is also, by Australian federal law, an official national flag. I would expect a court to rule that permission for use should not be unreasonably refused. Part of the criterion of reasonableness would be that there must have been a reasonable effort to obtain permission. I think that there has been such an effort: however, the effort should have been made by the publisher or by someone appointed to act on the publisher's behalf, and that has not happened.
  5. The legal issues may come down to an argument of public interest. Should WP cease to use this image of an Australian national flag until such time as this publisher's management (whoever and wherever they may be) has obtained permission from the copyright owner—given that the copyright owner has been made aware of the use and has not responded? One can also suppose that the copyright owner, or at least somebody in contact with them, will see this conversation or, at any rate, the templated copyright acknowledgement that I have placed on the article's Talk page.
  6. That said, if I were the copyright owner I might be reluctant to respond to any request from WP, given the amorphous nature of WP in structure and operation. I could not be very sure what would be done with my permission. Whereas, if I say nothing: my rights remain intact, I do not lose anything economically and my people continue to have good access to their flag. There is, in practice, collaboration between WP and the Torres Strait Island Regional Council.
  7. For these reasons, I think that we should continue to use the image, subject to receiving an objection from the copyright owner. Wikiain (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Wikiain: I think you might be misunderstanding AussieLegend's position. It doesn't seem as if he/she is suggesting that the file should be deleted or that Wikipedia should cease to use it, but only that it needs to remain licensed as non-free content and continued to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia, unlike Wikimedia Commons, does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded and used, but the relevant policy regarding such usage is quite restrictive. So, converting the licensing to some form of PD would make it much easier to use the file on Wikipedia. Now, it might be possible for this to be PD in the US only per c:COM:TOO#United States and relicense the file as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, even if it's still considered to be above c:COM:TOO#Australia. This sort of thing is sometimes done with respect to logos, etc. originating in the UK since the UK's TOO is much lower than that of the US. That, however, is sort of a judgement call and I think there should be a consensus to do such a thing before converting the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I thought I had done that on the article's Talk page and that AussieLegend was saying that this was not enough. But you and I seem to be in agreement in principle; if you are confident about the US position here, and if AussieLegend concurs, please go ahead. You may like to copy for Australian Aboriginal Flag, although there I expect the case for non-originality in US law would be stronger. Wikiain (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently, the file is licensed as both {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, and these licenses are in conflict with one another. If the file is truly non-free content, it shouldn't be licensed as "PD-inelgible-USonly"; on the other hand, it shouldn't be licensed as non-free content if it's truly "PD-ineligible-USonly". "PD-ineligible-USonly" basically means that the file is can be treated as PD locally on English Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be moved to Commons because the file might not be considered to be PD in its country of origin. "PD-ineligible-USonly" files are not subject to WP:NFCC and don't require non-free use rationales; so such files can essentially be used anywhere locally on English Wikipedia just like any other Commons file. The current conflicting licensing is untenable and will just cause unnecessary confusion, and one or the other needs to be removed. Which one should be removed is something which can be established here in this discussion.
Finally, I'm not sure if I understand the solution your proposing on the that article talk page. Original copyright holder permission is pretty much only needed when the copyright holder or someone else wants to release the file under a free license accepted by Wikipedia or Commons; such permission, however, is not needed for non-free content or PD files. "For Wikipedia-use only" or "for non-commercial use/non-derivative use only" types of permission are not going to be accepted by either Wikipedia or Commons as a "free license"; so, adding the statement you propose to the file's page will not do anything at all and will not make the file easier to use in more articles on Wikipedia. The file will still be considered to be non-free content and therefore still be subject to WP:NFCC, regardless of what quasi-permission statement is added to its talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you might be misunderstanding AussieLegend's position. . It doesn't seem as if he/she is suggesting that the file should be deleted or that Wikipedia should cease to use it, but only that it needs to remain licensed... @Marchjuly: That is an accurate appraisal. I only came here because Lojbanist was arguing that the image is public domain.
I thought I had done that on the article's Talk page and that AussieLegend was saying that this was not enough. @Wikiain: I never said any such thing. You posted on Talk:Torres Strait Islander Flag which I felt was rather coincidental as this discussion had just started and I had actually posted to WP:AWNB not realising you had posted on the same subject. More coincidentally, at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Torres Strait Islander.png Lojbanist had suggested that I email the copyright owners, which was obviously not necessary as you had written to them. All of those posts occurred at around the same time.
Currently, the file is licensed as both {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, and these licenses are in conflict with one another. - {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} was only added by Lojbanist a short while before this discussion started.[1] --AussieLegend () 09:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13

File:Cerro Colorado Mts.jpg

File:Cerro Colorado Mts.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tillman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As a photo of a natural feature (that is not the subject of any commentary regarding, say, any historical context in the article it is used in) this is very much replaceable by a freely licensed image and does not meet WP:NFCC. —innotata 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

First, you have to find one. I looked before uploading it, way back then. And it does have historic significance, as a 1959 photo. It would be interesting to compare this one to a current image! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Like it or not, that isn't how the non-free content criteria work, take a look through them; they require it to be unlikely a free alternative can be found or created now. Just being historic isn't enough to justify the use of an image, there needs to be some commentary that the image is valuable to. —innotata 05:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Nematocyst-discharged.png

File:Nematocyst-discharged.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Spaully (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Taken from Ukrainian Wikipedia, where it was deleted for unspecified reasons. No source information beyond that. —innotata 02:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded this such a long time ago I cannot remember the details of the usage policy on the Ukrainian wiki. Using a reverse image search reveals many uses of the image but all after the upload here, so it is possible they have taken it from Wikipedia. This link suggests Nature Education has copyright, though again this postdates the use of the image on WP. Their usage policy:
You may reproduce this material, without modifications, in print or electronic form for your personal, non-commercial purposes or for non-commercial use in an educational environment.
It is a striking image which supports the article Cnidocyte especially with the comparison to File:Nematocyst_discharge.png. It would be a shame to lose it. Are you asserting that this is not public domain because we cannot trace who released it? WP had different standards of attribution in 2006 so we may now have lost the original source information.
Can anyone look at the archive of the Ukrainian WP page to see if another source was linked? Is this usage policy from Nature Education enough for WP use? |→ Spaully ~talk~  09:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Spaully: It's pretty safe to assume Nature Education are the copyright holders or licensed it, a major publisher are unlikely to falsely claim authorship. In order to be considered free (libre) content, commercial use and modifications must be allowed. In order for us to know something is free content we need to know who created it and how it is free content. —innotata 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
For comparison image 2 on the Coral Reef page they also claim copyright over originated from a NOAA page on Corals (and this one). I rewrote the Coral page back in 2006-08 and found the NOAA images then to add to the WP page, but not the Nature Education page. Our image is also larger, with extra information on the left side. This National Geographic article also predates the Nature site.
Those misgivings aside, it doesn't provide evidence of public domain for this image. Who would be able to check a deleted page on Ukrainian WP, an admin? Do you know of any admins here who are also Ukrainian?

File:Pir Sohawa.jpg

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

Deleted on Wikimedia Commons and Wikitravel Shared as a copyright violation. —innotata 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:SHKF-logo.png

File:SHKF-logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ebizss (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

FFD refferal over ineligibility owing to the stylized S at the start. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cultured Meat Hamburger, created by Mosa Meat.jpg

File:Cultured Meat Hamburger, created by Mosa Meat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vdrijdt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP#8 - Its presence is not going to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Text could easily state the similarity. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

· Thanks Ron! Would it be useful if it was uploaded under a more forgiving license, say cc 4.0? Or is it more general practice to keep descriptions in text where possible? (In which case I could remove it from the article completely) Vdrijdt (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vdrijdt, yes the image could stay if it were uploaded under CC4.0 BUT only the original photographer can do such a change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Joan Murrell Owens.jpg

File:Joan Murrell Owens.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rpf252 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file duplicates File:Granville evelyn.jpg but claims to be an entirely different person. I've no idea which is right so I don't think deletion under WP:F8 is appropriate. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - the upload here on the English Wikipedia is sourced to [www.peoplemaven.com] which consist of user built content based on their about page. That makes it an unreliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:U.S. Census 2000 reference map of ZIP Code 10814.gif

File:U.S. Census 2000 reference map of ZIP Code 10814.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smurfette143~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned. Uploaded by a user blocked as a sockpuppet, and deleted from Commons in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum as out of scope. Not particularly useful, and can easily be recreated from the Census site in a better format if it ever is. —innotata 18:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Barton Boar shield.png

File:Barton Boar shield.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HeyJude70 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Clearly eligible for copyright, and dating to the 1990s automatically copyrighted globally on creation. Orphaned. —innotata 18:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Col. N.F. Batyuk in his headquarters during the Battle of Stalingrad.jpg

File:Col. N.F. Batyuk in his headquarters during the Battle of Stalingrad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't know whether the copyright term on photos in the Soviet Union was still 5 years in 1942, but copyright was retroactively extended in 1961 so this was presumably still copyright in the Soviet Union when the US URAA went into effect in 1996. Orphaned, and currently licensed by Getty Images. —innotata 19:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Charles David Tandy.jpg

File:Charles David Tandy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adslnation (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence provided image was released into public domain upon donation to library in question (rather than simply being made available for the public to access). May qualify for non-free use. —innotata 19:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:District Map Honolulu City Council.gif

File:District Map Honolulu City Council.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nihiloris (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Works of local government in the United States are not exempt from copyright. —innotata 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 14

File:Google Cloud Print logo.png

File:Google Cloud Print logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Logan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deleted on commons for Copyright violation Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cezanne Beigneuses.jpg

File:Cezanne Beigneuses.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ham II (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, and superseded by File:Paul Cézanne 048.jpg on Commons. I am the original uploader. Ham II (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Lippi - Adoration of the Magi.jpg

File:Lippi - Adoration of the Magi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ham II (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, and superseded by File:Filippino Lippi - Adorazione dei Magi - Google Art Project.jpg on Commons. I am the original uploader. Ham II (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Piero - The Dream of Constantine.jpg

File:Piero - The Dream of Constantine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ham II (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Duplicate of File:Piero della Francesca 017.jpg on Commons. I am the original uploader. Ham II (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:London Portal logo.JPG

File:London Portal logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ham II (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by File:Wikiproject london logo.svg. I am the original uploader. Ham II (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:SmarTone logo.svg

File:SmarTone logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wefk423 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A PD logo, but it was uploaded as an unfree SVG file. I assume that this means that the uploader or whoever made the vectorisation refused to license the vectorisation. Since the underlying logo is PD, the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as it can be replaced by a freely licensed vectorisation (or by a bitmap version). Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stefan2: My apologies, this should be a PD logo extracted from SmarTone's official website. Should I just replace the license of the file with {{pd-logo}}? –Wefk423 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to free and send to Commons as {{pd-textlogo}} — JJMC89(T·C) 01:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SVG files may have a copyright in addition to that of the image they represent. Did we ever settle this question? If no this should probably be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Relicense to pd-logo and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm sorry I don't really get that. "SVG files may have a copyright in addition to that of the image they represent"? It is a pd-textlogo that does not meet the threshold of originality and is in the public domain. Or did am I missing something? Cheers. (p.s. also agree to relicense it as pd-logo and transfer to Commons) –Wefk423 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
SVG files are essentially a computer program. Thus they might hold a copyright by themselves even if the displayed image qualifies as PD-textlogo. This question has come up several times in FFD and I don't remember a clear resolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ToglManRacer.jpg

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

Product design/packaging artwork. Toy designs are copyrightable (as word the packaging artwork), and so a clarification on how this can be self, and the uploaders connection to the item shown would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Retag as non-free fair-use. It is used as the only image in the article specifically about this toy, so a picture of it in its original packaging, seems fine. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What kind of rationale should be put in if this is relicensed as non-free?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:La Sierra High School (sign).jpg

File:La Sierra High School (sign).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by R.Stratton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works in the USA FASTILY 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Only image in La Sierra High School and clearly representative of its topic. Give it a FUR if you feel it is non-free. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not a good solution. The school still exists so adding a FUR would cause the image to fail WP:NFCC#1. The eagle logo is displayed, so de minimis could not apply. Fairly textbook non-free derivative case. -FASTILY 05:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable concern. Logo is not critical for "photo of the school" context but cutting out the logo from this image would destroy it (not de minimis). A separate "school logo" file (fair use) would pass (logo of an organization to represent the organization) and a separate "image of the school" without such focus on the mascot could be free. DMacks (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
...but why couldn't this be cropped down to be that logo-of-the-organization FU file? I cannot find an alternate logo or picture of their mascot on the school's website. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to do the crop? Consensus seems to be leaning towards using it only cropped.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - a photo pf the actual school is possible. As for a separate logo, the site does have a crest which would be usable under a non-free usage rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 15

File:Thorcon can and primary.png

File:Thorcon can and primary.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siphon06 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Further to the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 24#File:Thorcon nuclear island.jpg, this appears to fall under more or less the same case. There's no permission from the author, no source where we can verify the licence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The same may also apply to other uploads from the same user:
Ping BU Rob13, who nominated the file deleted in March. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Discurso de De Gaulle.ogg

File:Discurso de De Gaulle.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cochise6 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

speech by notable individual, dubious CC license, unclear licensing status - likely copyrighted FASTILY 18:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:AudiFieldNighttime.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Photos from Twitter are not in the public domain. Not sure if this qualifies as a speedy since I'm not that familiar with file speedy rules, so I'm bringing it up here. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy F9 For future reference, tag it with F9 with a link to the source. And 'no permission', which this has also been tagged with, only applies when there's a claim of a release; there isn't any here. —innotata 04:07, 16 July 2018 (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.

File:Sempl 2.jpg

File:Sempl 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nixer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Bob Semple Tank on a parade on 10 March 1941.jpg seems to be a free alternative photo. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 21:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16

File:Morton.irwin.birnbaum.jpeg

File:Morton.irwin.birnbaum.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dcw2003 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See Talk:Morton Birnbaum. If that's correct, then this image is actually of a different person who we do not have an article on. Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


This is the correct person and the correct image for the fair use tag. If not, please prove that it is not the psychiatrist and lawyer Morton Birnbaum. Thank-you, image creator dcw2003. (David)

@Dcw2003: This says it's Irwin Birnbaum, not Morton Birnbaum. Adam9007 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:XboxOneX2018.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:XboxOneX2018.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Clarkzero (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same image uploaded as nonfree, File:XboxOneXblack.jpgBri (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fraudulent own work claim. Official Microsoft photo. Image exists on other sites. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have updated the image with my own high quality photo. Will this work? Also, the listing of my own was an mistake and I corrected it shortly after putting copyright owner as Mircosoft. I am still reading a lot of the copyright policies on Wikipedia so I do not make this mistake again. Clarkzero 🌑 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete New file created, own work. Name is File:XboxOneXfree.jpg. Will this WORK? Clarkzero 🌑 22:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    Reverse image search reveals instances of this image that pre-date its upload. Once again you are trying to fraudulently upload images which you did not create, and repeated copyright violations are a blockable offense. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - uploader has deliberately lied about being the copyright holder and taking a photo with a handycam. This is an obvious product catalog / press release type photo. See this as an example of its use in a catalog. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2018 (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.

File:Parkchesterbx1.JPG

File:Parkchesterbx1.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwiki718 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source explicitly given, and although I can't find the ultimate source, a Google Images reverse image search turns up plenty of higher-resolution versions. —innotata 04:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Football-title.jpg

File:Football-title.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kotosb (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not an image of just the logo and unencyclopedic. —innotata 04:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Las Pinas, Philippines Saltern Circa 1890-1920 U.S. Library Of Congress Cropped.jpg

File:Las Pinas, Philippines Saltern Circa 1890-1920 U.S. Library Of Congress Cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Higher Ground 1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal to FFD for a second opinion, Currently this has no license tag, but given the source and dates, is it most likely to be PD-US-1923? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Deakin University Logo.png

File:Deakin University Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Currently no license, but most likely ineligible given the lack of originality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly due Australia's high TOO. Salavat (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:NetIQs Logo May 2012.jpg

File:NetIQs Logo May 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shephardd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Querying ineligibility , given the logo elements (non-trival) left. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Looks to technical to fall below the TOO. Salavat (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Korean Democratic Labor Party (logo).png

File:Korean Democratic Labor Party (logo).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

How on earth is a recent logo PD? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Clearly mis-licensed as party wasn't formed until 2000. Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Korean Democratic Labor Party was merged into the Unified Progressive Party. After the dissolution of Unified Progressive Party by the Constitutional Court of Korea, All of property of UPP was transfered to Korean government. South Korean copyright law Article 49(Expiry of Author's Property Rights)
  • Author's property rights shall expire in any of the following cases:
  • 1.Where, after the author's death without heir, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to provisions of the Civil Law and other laws

and

  • 2. Where, after the dissolution of a legal person or an organization who is the owner of author's property rights, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to the provisions of the Civil Law and others laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:EB0F:6C9C:0:0:BA48:FE01 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:VicCricketers1877.jpg

File:VicCricketers1877.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phanto282 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No obvious source, but clearly PD by age, an artist working in 1877 is clearly not necessarily going to still be alive in 1946. Bringing this to FFD because the 1955 claim is typically for photos, not for artwork which should ideally have an identifiable artist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:JJKellyCigCard.jpg

File:JJKellyCigCard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phanto282 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Pre 1955 rule is generally applied to photos or anon works. The media here is a cigarette card which would have an identifiable (corporate) author? Almost certainly PD by age but felt a clarfication was needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Davidoffclassic sign.jpg

File:Davidoffclassic sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mohamed Osama AlNagdy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very low quality picture. Doesn't serve a crucial role to be kept as such. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 09:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Ddoff lights.jpg

File:Ddoff lights.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mohamed Osama AlNagdy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low quality picture. Other pictures of the same brand already exist in Commons. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 09:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cefai Joseph small photo.jpg

File:Cefai Joseph small photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SunTrax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:CENTURY promo-03.jpg

File:CENTURY promo-03.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Believerevolt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 17

File:IPad Mini 4 ClearPhoto.jpg

File:IPad Mini 4 ClearPhoto.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Clarkzero (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Questionable own work claim, looks like a stolen press photo. Uploader has made similarly questionable claims on other images. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - The claim is not credible. He made a similar claim that he photographed the image uploaded as File:XboxOneXfree.jpg with the source specified as "At my home with an Sony Alpha a7 24MP UHD 4K Camera." However, the image is copied from somewhere like at this site, but they just cropped out the bottom of the image to remove the watermark. -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Mara Corday 1955.jpg

File:Mara Corday 1955.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Higher Ground 1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly unfree. Deleted on Commons by User:Jcb at c:File:Mara Corday 1955.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:GeraldinAustinTX.jpg

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

Delete: This image's copyright is not as indicated. The file description page indicates it is available under GNU Free Documentation License and CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, the information page regarding the site's copyright policy (found here) does not indicate such licenses being applicable. It does state that images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but it does not state under what license. Further, the same document at (1) restricts other uses not indicated, which makes it incompatible with the indicated licenses. As such, the image is not free, and not available under the licenses indicated. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - permission has been given to copy files for use on site such as Wikipedia, but without a statement of an explicit free license of the sort claimed on this image upload. The other restrictions in the policy would indicate that this file is not free in the way that Wikipedia requires. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Stephan Körner-Cavalry.JPG

File:Stephan Körner-Cavalry.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Annmaltmanphd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly unfree. Deleted on Commons by User:Jcb at c:File:Stephan Körner-Cavalry.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Seaurchin2.jpg

File:Seaurchin2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cape cod naturalist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

better crop, resolution, and attribution at File:Black Sea Urchin (Arbacia lixula) in Croatia.jpg. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:National Alliance (United States).png

File:National Alliance (United States).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yorkshirian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from William Luther Pierce. The logo does not increase the reader's understanding of Pierce and is not the subject of critical commentary. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Rocket League The Vinyl Collection.jpg

File:Rocket League The Vinyl Collection.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The caption at Music of Rocket League fails WP:NFCC#8. With this, the article has already 6 copyrighted works in it. This image does not seem relevant enough to be included unlike the audio files. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose – the image illustrates a section of the article that describes the albums released featuring Mike Ault and Hollywood Principle’s music for Rocket League. Chosen is the artwork that best represents the releases (an album that includes all material officially released) and the nature of the game itself, depicting its rocket-powered cars and hinting at its gameplay elements, allowing the viewer to identify the kind and type of releases that were made featuring Rocket League's music. Also mentioned is the name of the artist, described in the article itself as a community artist, allowing readers to also identify the kind of artwork the artist mentioned has produced for the Rocket League soundtrack. Tagging Anarchyte as the GA reviewer of the Music of Rocket League article for their thoughts on the matter, after giving the images a pass in their review. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I can see both positives and negatives for including this. The positive being it visualises the gatefold design, a topic not everyone knows about by name. The negative is of course being the fact there are 5 other non-free works in the article and there are free equivalents on the gatefold article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Kittyfelton.jpg

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

Refferal because the source listed dates to 1947 (i.e post 1923), but the image is presumably from a period before the publication listed. Is it pre 1923? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down a copy of the cited book (OCLC 3438908) to see if it has any details about the origin of this picture. Given that Katharine Felton, the subject of this image, is long deceased and we have no other images of her, seems like could be retagged as fair-use for that article. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Make that "...if we have no other images of her." Commons has File:Katharine Felton.jpg and File:Kitty Felton.jpg, but neither of those has original source info either (only cited to the uploader and original photograph date, which is insufficient to establish publication date or artist, so cannot confirm PD-old). DMacks (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Footer

Today is July 17 2018. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 17 -- (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 "===July 17===" 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.