Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 17

November 17

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука¹³ 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. The use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo which has not been found elsewhere for this defunct group. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article is barely enough to use {{External media}}. Once again - what prevents you (not you specifically, but any person) from taking your own photo of this object? And again, why, despite MOS:LEAD / MOS:LEADIMAGE / MOS:SECTIONLOC, is the image placed in the infobox, and not in the section in which it is described?

Are you sure you tried? — Ирука¹³ 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the link you provided for the org is from 2013 is that the Order went defunct in 2014. There is no longer a national office to call for a photo. But I think you are missing the point. The photo was taken by a federal employee in their capacity at the federal institution (the national museum). Copyright is, therefore, not an issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the reason.

The community is 100 years old. All of its members and their families are dead. All - all! - of the merchandise is destroyed or in Fort Knox. Am I right in understanding why you can't take a photo of it? — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't take a photo because I don't live in the country where the organization existed. But I don't have to because the photo is in public domain as a federal government product. Rublamb (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal employee? In Canada? — Ирука¹³ 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Canada has a federal government. Although works released by the federal government fall under Crown Copyright, "recent changes allow non-commercial use of Federal Government Works without permission". More info can be found at this summary by Dalhousie University, a public university in Canada. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's point of view, these are still not free images. — Ирука¹³ 09:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am typically very cautious about copyright, having received training in this field as part of an MLIS. Per a recent discussion in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, it was confirmed that photographs taken by a federal employee in their capacity of work for the federal agency are allowable in Wikipedia, depending on the laws of each country. Although Canadian laws differ from those in the US, this usage falls under fair use without written authorization because Wikipedia is not commercial. If the same photo were from a US national museum, I would added it through WikiCommons but went the fair use route for this image because Canadian law limits usage to non-commercial, which is not consistent with WikiCommons policies. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you even mention it then? What about "the photo is in public domain as a federal government product"? — Ирука¹³ 23:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13, would it mollify your concern here if we shift the usage to serve as the primary image in the infobox, to identify the group? These are now images that can be used in body text, which are discussed at some degree. We would prefer to include both a crest and a pin image, but haven't been able to find a crest in this case. The pin image is our fallback. Jax MN (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will not use non-free images anywhere, violating 2 licenses, if it is possible to violate only one or not violate at all. — Ирука¹³ 07:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. You are incorrectly evaluating this photo using the standards of WP:NONFREE. Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia. However, it cannot be added to WikiCommons because it cannot be used for commercial uses without permission. Photos added to WikiCommons must be useable by anyone, with no restrictions. It may be uncommon to find a photo that falls under free content that does not meet the guidelines for WikiCommons but it does happen. This is one of those images--it does not need to meet WP:NONFREE because it is a free image. Rublamb (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because this photo can be used for non-commercial purposes without written authorization, it falls under free content that can be used in Wikipedia.

Where did you get this information? — Ирука¹³ 09:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What info? Canadaian copyrights or Wikipedia policy? Rublamb (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

free license template that you are ready to put on this file — Ирука¹³ 17:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the rationale stated by Rublamb. Responding to Iruka13's (Ирука's) point, I hope that someone visiting the museum would indeed take a clearer picture, but for now, this image will suffice. As to placement, the F&S Project prefers to use a society's crest as the organizational identifier in the top left infobox, but when this is unavailable or of significantly (~too) low resolution, we opt for images of the society's pin or key. If both are available, we then place the pin or key image against the parameter | member badge = [badge].PNG, also in the infobox, or as a thumbnail graphic in the Symbols section of the body text. Both items help identify the society and its members, and in all cases we opt for PD images where we can, or reduced-size fair use images which do not affect commercial viability. Jax MN (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The participant confirmed that it is possible to take a free photo. — Ирука¹³ 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.gif

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep This nomination seems unintelligible to me too - I have no idea what the nomination is asking for * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a very similar image, but with thinner lines, is on the official website of the cathedral, I have not found any other information about it. — Ирука¹³ 09:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not understand this deletion proposal. On what basis is the nominator proposing deletion? That they cannot confirm that it is sufficiently old to be tagged as being "first published outside the United States [..] before 1978"? While, perhaps, the licence tag could be improved, there is ample evidence that the image is sufficiently old as to be out of copyright. Including this record (which includes this representation of the same seal) reputedly dating to "c.1870". Or this post about a modern company that "reworked" the logo/seal which states that the "Capitular Seal [is] a signifying marque of Christ Church dating from the 12th Century". Whether the version on Wikipedia dates from the 19th century or the 12th century, it is not copyrighted or copyrightable. Perhaps {{PD-old-assumed}} would be a better tag. But I do not see any reason for deletion (nor, from what I can tell, has the nominator offered one...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People see what they want to see... please scroll all the way to the top of the page and read what is written there in large print.

Now. We have a seal - a 3D object from the 12th century. And we have sketches from the 1870s. And there is a restoration in the form of a drawing on paper from the end of the twentieth, or already the 21st century? The latter is in full swing of copyright. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But I (still) don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean "people see what they want to see". What people? Me? What do I want to see? And what page should I "scroll all the way to the top" of? And what will I see there?

As per my note above, and this page in a related book, the seal of Christ Church Cathedral dates to at least 1230. With the version represented in the image under discussion dating from a "reworking of the design" from 1660.

Even if the representation uploaded to Wikipedia was, as you say, "a drawing [of the 13th or 17th century seal] on paper from the end of the twentieth or 21st century" it wouldn't become copyrighted. Or copyrightable. In order for the recent representation (the "drawing on paper") to be copyrighted or copyrightable, that derivative work would have to be substantially changed from the original work. Which isn't the case. The "drawing" is an unaltered representation of a work dating from (at least) the 17th century. It isn't copyrightable.

My recommendation remains a "keep". Otherwise the image (or a version of it) could also be moved to Commons. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we can compare 2D and 3D objects, then everything is exactly as you say. — Ирука¹³ 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arms of Bonar Law.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be from a deleted article. Should be moved to Commons in the appropriate category. Or, taking into account the participant’s contribution, delete it. Because only the shield is drawn here; roosters are photoshopped onto the shield; all this together is put on a wreath. — Ирука¹³ 12:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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