Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 1

April 1

File:Kaelyn Behr.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A dubious claim of own work. The description reads "Kaelyn Behr (Styalz) in 2019", but a similar image was published by the subject on their Instagram in 2017. GSS ^💬 10:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that the uploader got it from the subject, considering that the subject's Wikipedia article has a suspected paid editor tag on it, however that would necessitate permission through OTRS, I reckon. For now, I say delete per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2020 (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:Onesie-man.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not likely to be useful here or at any sister projects, and ... kind of horrifying too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value and agree, it is horrifying. Salavat (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2020 (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:1974 Hank Aaron "Side B" Topps Error Card.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image currently orpaned, my read of the source and permission links does not indicate it has been released into the public domain. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: It appears Jordan 1972 listed this as not being in the "public domain" and Salavat immediately approved it without reading the full description.

The poster of the image in the listing says "All images of the Hank Aaron 'Side B' card may be used freely. The card images only (images #1-9 as of March 26, 2020) may be used in the public domain and News Agencies are allowed to use these card images (especially CNN,CNBC, FOX and FOX NEWS). BESTDEALSNEWYOR is releasing the images of the card only to the public domain." from link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/HANK-AARON-SIDE-B-CARD-1-1-1974-TOPPS-6-RARER-than-1954-Frank-Thomas-NNOF/193236581210?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item2cfdcc3b5a:g:G4gAAOSwXetdzAtQ&enc=AQAEAAACUBPxNw%2BVj6nta7CKEs3N0qUeH%2FYH3RaykgMe5pgFfs%2FN8rzF7ByGa8kMQxoz7sz8cAwxyOcmGziwWDxZcGV8jrCDMFy2XWr4n33EBMlhjo9vafQAEMiK2BN%2FSN8NxJXwZCZvBoDmKFKPeVIvo6RRpCrDHk0c1aoujlVh%2F6hptl288osSRb7159SkP%2FtBbVWcrDq4Efyt%2Bv%2FFrGJdc1K%2FNK6KguQ%2FQ41G7KRwW2mb3d9DkPkD%2BbIiRYgmwkYsk14a2vTR1guLFGc5aM%2F0CxaOOTWJWguJwNqxtG36GioKK%2BI6eFgDx%2FGMI95aqscaOLxl51PFw3Nc4MKrzFzOJ77a3mVQ5YVLhCfqwcFZPLMnPMKtr%2FuFF4QzVLWoUkHI8%2BXWaFjExbAGn2yz2pwynjhg7%2FKGRb90px%2FFvMfuRLNzKVY8pvd%2FU6cvakMpNMrUm1U4tSweYp1fBGdhJXZAcXW2pQENKJ3pFlni9RgfcG3n4g8ccuprdtL16xgFnLjO6nHRBXEcVyF09SZP6dfSqsm9uJnAhWWfQjxvq84Bsry26Sdr%2BJYS7dytrXELc9JewT7N4aGnfDjWSBgozYyJtRnoGSiRLMy005ydeSYhStjNpnqMdfMAS1byzAQ%2BwlqW1EOZjkM2aPMHqqMnVFjQ%2FzPi3he%2FaZacbrTYsNhwY6IMSD8b8f1syah9zqJgcLxDFtuyhc7tqdILEish1KX3Kju%2FUW%2FfnYYQKn3oJGh3iqdn6oh92Q73YEEpjQn65clJK5ShQXb%2B%2FnLHoOfVUQX23Lcoqac%3D&checksum=1932365812101bcc750b330940c4b928eea9d9a6ee8f&autorefresh=true

This is written near the bottom of the screen. Various news agencies may have already publicly used this image. It appears that the image is in the "public domain". Also, this picture is needed for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron_%22SIDE_B%22 Hank Aaron "SIDE B" article/wiki/page which is currently pending. Please feel free to edit. It will take some time to tweak it. Moreover, the image is receiving a lot of discussion or attention on the Baseball Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball We should let the image remain posted, the new wikipage be developed, and see how the extensive discussion develops. Generalinfosports (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Expert Card Analyst Generalinfosports (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The uploader might wish to have their photo of the cards released into the public domain, but it doesn't matter because the cards themselves are likely under copyright. See Wikipedia:DERIVATIVE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have created an Administrators' noticeboard post about the uploader and this FfD. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) an image (the alleged, currently unconfirmed copyright) within an image (added background of picture taken) within an ecommerce platform may have different legal implications depending on the context.

in this case the heavier connotation of invoking copyright law would be in the case of physically photocopying then reselling the card, but that is not happending here

No evidence was provided that the image is in the copyright database ( a thought of "likely" (talk) does not mean it is)

even if it was, this image is for educational use ( Section 107 of the Copyright Act) , as fair usage (historical info, research, news reporting and nonprofit educational activities). There is no intent to make a sale from a copyright which has not been proven in the court of law to exist. there is no intent proven to make a sale from this image at all. I specifically am not trying to make a sale from that photo being on wiki and only have ONE wikipedia.org account.

shout out to (talk) for listing the other accounts used" in his profile; however, there other parties involved may not have done that User:Salavat , User_talk:Ckruschke , User:Philip_Trueman , and User:Jordan 1972

another consideration may be that the unconfirmed copyright not only does not apply to the SIDE B error designation but also that the consumer may have been mislead/defrauded to receive a product he or she did not pay for (by having the SIDE B error on it) as opposed to expecting a clean image of a baseball player possibly affecting the rights of the party who may or may not own the alleged copyrhight. so the card as a whole should be looked at (which is believed to be released by topps under normal manufactuering procedure a.t.m) presumeably being if the standard copyright existed it would not have been filed for errors on the card as well, especially the SIDE B error. Does Topps or the copyright holder have a legal right to copyright an image which they negligently or defraudingly sold to a consumer?

why does Section 107 of the Copyright Act have to be discussed. as a less restrictive alternative, (1) should a different source image lcoation be used to have the image approved for fair usage? (2) if the moderators dont' feel comfortable with the larger image, then for eductional purposes, can a moderator pull the SIDE B image on the source image like and replace it for purposes of creating the article (the SIDE B image is zoomed in on, negating the picture of hank aaron) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalinfosports (talk • contribs) 05:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether the usage qualifies as fair use under US copyright law. We only allow media to be under fair use if it meets our strict WP:NFCC and such media needs to be correctly tagged as such. Otherwise all media needs to be under a suitable free licence. I don't think it's worth discussing your claims of copyright and fraud except to say we require confirmation something is not copyright protected (or is under a free licence) rather than the reverse. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is public domain, the onus is on the uploader to show it explicitly without Wikilawyering. If it is a derivative work that can be used under fair use, it is now orphaned (and was only used in an unviable draft anyway), so there is no rationale to keep it regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 3 April 2020 (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:Hakim Syed Fazlur Rahman with brothers.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

orhaned image, license applied is a public domain one but additional text on page by uploader claims it use is under fair use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2020 (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:Sturdyankit.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

orpahed, tagged with free licences but text added saying image can only be used with author's written permission, appears to be photo of uploader. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I uploaded it with intentions to place in my user page (when I was new here) on that time I don't know t&c of wiki, but now it is orphan. honourable adminstrator can remove or delete it. Thanks Sturdyankit (chat) 16:30, 1 April 2020 (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:Groundwat.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Falling river level causing landslide 1.svg. Not in use and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2020 (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:Ramseypic.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Ramseypic.svg. Not in use and unlikely to ever be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2020 (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:EURO 2028 logo proposal.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope - fan-made logo for a tournament that has not even started bidding yet, let alone picked a site. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned fake logo with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2020 (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:Simulation Theory (album) music videos.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are already pieces of non-free media showing the Outrun-style graphics. If we really want to show a screenshot from a music video, one can be justified but not two. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no obvious connection between the prose in the music video section and the screenshots selected (you're talking about vampires and werewolves and depicting fast cars and neon lights). There's also nothing in those screenshots from a visual understanding of the aesthetic standpoint that doesn't already appear in the cover art in the infobox. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2020 (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.