Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 28

March 28

File:Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing claims that the uploader holds the copyright, but the comments indicate otherwise with the subject being claimed to be the author (unlikely) and also statinf that fair use rationale applies. Likely a copyright violation. A previous upload of this same image by the uploader was simply unlicensed. Whpq (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Whpq: This image is clicked by Science of Spirituality (SOS) during Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Spiritual Discourse Program. This is the original file which is uploaded and have complete Licensing for the same. Early it was uploaded unlicensed by mistake. Would request Wikipedia to allow us to use the same. SOSWikiEditor (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SOSWikiEditor: Please do not add new comments to closed FFD discussions. Add them below the discussion, like I did here, or add them to the other editor's user talk page, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russell Ebert Magarey Medals, State Library of South Australia, July 2017.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medallions are non-free, i.e. photos of non-free art/work etc. are not free images. Image fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#3, particularly the purpose of the image even if used for historical purposes. Can almost argue image is replaceable too as there are most likely photos of Ebert when he won the medals (which some may be under a free licence). Flickerd (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bankstownwatertower.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 23#File:Bankstownwatertower.jpg. ℯ xplicit 06:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is claiming this image is "own work", but given the description "Construction of Bankstown Reservoir. 1919.", the "own work" claim isn't credible. Whpq (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, image is in public domain per {{PD-US-1923}} and {{PD-Australia}}. I have updated the licencing, however, the source and author needs updating. Flickerd (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Betty Wilson Adelaide Oval 1949.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image has a restored copyright as it was published after the URAA date in Australia (1 January 1946). Fails NFCC#8 for use in Adelaide Oval. Flickerd (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

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: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 06:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons contains many images with this logo; these are tagged as PD-USGov. It appears that the restriction being used to argue that this isn't PD only applies to stamps. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This file has been previously discussed before at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg as well as at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/March#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg 150px. The last FFD discussion (May 31, 2017) dealt mainly with whether the svg file could be kept per WP:NFCCP, but the consensus for the one before that was to retain the logo as non-free. The file is being used in United States Postal Service, which seems NFCCP compliant. It was also being used in Political appointments by Donald Trump, but I removed it per WP:NFCCE since it didn't have a valid non-free use rationale and per the March 18, 2017 FFD consensus. Finally, if there's are licensing issues with Commons files, then they probably need to be resolved on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
United States Postal Service#Stamp copyright and reproduction tells that stamps published in 1978 and later are copyrighted whereas older stamps are in the public domain. I have always assumed that the same argument also applies to other works created by the postal service, such as logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that since 1971 when the US postal service became USPS and ceased being a government department, their work is their own copyright. However, curiously US stamps were still PD until the end of 1977. I would actually think that commons images such as, File:USPS Truck at Night.jpg where the logo is not de minimis, fall foul of USPS's copyright and post-1970 commons images tagged as PD-USGov are mainly likely incorrectly licensed but would need individual review. That's a discussion for the commons but those I quickly looked at were a few stamps with NASA images included or USPS vehicles. ww2censor (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A new copyright law replaced the old copyright law in 1978, so it's possible that the definition of a government work changed at that point and that this is the reason for the 1978 cut-off year instead of 1971. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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