Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 25 April 2021

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24

File:Samsung Galaxy M51 phone case.jpg

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy M51 phone case.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beach Boys Maharishi.jpg

NFCC concerns – is it acceptable to use a non-free image to visually identify the subject of an article, even though there's no supporting commentary about the image? JG66 (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm raising this issue (with these files as examples) for discussion. These are not my uploads but I admit I am tempted to upload other non-free files that would be used in the same way in their respective articles, and would similarly lack 3rd party commentary devoted to the image and its significance. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be allowed under WP:NFCI #8 (Images with iconic status or historical importance ... which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events) and #10. (Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.) ili (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the record, David Anderle is a non-living person, but if the concern lies with the painting next to him, well, that painting is discussed in the article. ili (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is says in full there at WP:NFCI #8 is (with my emphasis added): Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. Following that link from "contextual significance" gives (again with my emphasis): Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It's questions raised by those areas I've emphasised, especially the last point, that I'd like some clarity on, and I think we all need some clarity on them. JG66 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mutants (Marvel Comics - circa 2019 -2020).jpg

With so many cast of characters in a very low resolution, this image basically failed in its purpose as "visual identification of the subject of the article". It is barely identifiable. I propose to delete it and replace with image with fewer characters and more identifiable. File:Marvel Universe (Civil War).jpg is a great example of how it should be. enjoyer -- talk 09:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:KFC logo.svg

This is a non-free logo in SVG format which is not created by the copyright holder, thus should not be used as per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Multiple_restrictions. Wcam (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweatshops creative commons.jpg

This image is asserted to be freely licensed, but does not provide a source beyond stating "Marissa Orton". The naming implies it was likely found via a Creative Commons image search. The image is likely from here which is part of a flickr stream for marissaorton. Although these are freely licensed, I doubt very much that the Flickr user is the copyright holder. The account looks to be used for flickrwashing. For example this image is a composite of two images with one watermarked AP and the other watermarked Getty Images. I don't know of this is teh same image one deleted at Commons but this discussion clearly identifies the same flickr photo stream and comes to the same conclusion hat the flickr account is being used for license laundering. Whpq (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons by Whpq, it is highly likely this is flickr washing and not freely licensed. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes the image is from creative commons and is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0 and therefore I assumed it was freely licensable. Apologies for adding the image, but I thought because of its license I would be able to do so. Could you please explain why it cannot be uploaded? Thanks Bakeaholic (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakeaholic: Some people upload unfree copyrighted images to Flickr which they are not the author of, under a free license. Only the copyright holder of the image can license it, so the license is not valid. Certain properties can help indentify these types of uploads, such as whether the upload is low resolution, has missing metadata, is elsewhere on the internet, or by looking at the other uploads of the user and whether they a suspicious. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DylsssThank you for this explanation - I will now be more vigilant when uploading images Bakeaholic (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg

Violate WP:NFCC#1. There are some free media in Wikimedia Commons with acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. SCP-2000 16:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those free images are equivalent for the stated purpose of this image: to portray the "interior environment" of the camps. The purpose itself seems justified, but as this image is used in the two infoboxes to accompany the entire article instead of specific passages, it's a little difficult to judge how well it is actually served. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those other available images can provide comparable context to readers of Wikipedia articles that are currently using this image, given icobic status of the image and how it directly show the situation inside. C933103 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Literally nothing in that Commons category is an actual photo of the facilities. There are eleven files, of which four are videos. Of the remaining seven, two are graphs, four are maps, and one is a photo of a German guy while he's doing an interview about the camps. This nomination makes no sense. jp×g 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippine Arena SEA Games.jpg

The English Wikipedia has rejected the idea that Philippines government works are free as they supposedly have a restriction on commercial use. Wikimedia Commons considers this to be a non-copyright restriction, unfortunately this cannot be moved to Commons and we apparently consider this to be non-free so this should be deleted. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I'm afraid this cannot be free on Commons too, as there is no freedom of panorama here as of the moment. In addition to that, I cannot determine who Castillo of Philippine Information Agency is. Search on Google via keywords "Castillo Philippine Information Agency" brings two noticeable results: two people on LinkedIn having this surname: Nette Castillo and Cristina Castillo. I'm not sure if this Castillo is really a government employee or was just hired. See also this currently-open deletion request at Commons over a file that was previously thought to be PD-PhilippinesGov but was in fact from a freelance photographer who was just hired by the Office of the Vice President. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :{{re|Bakeaholic}} Some people upload unfree copyrighted images to Flickr which they are not the author of, under a free license. Only the copyright holder of the image can license it, so the license is not valid. Certain properties can help indentify these types of uploads, such as whether the upload is low resolution, has missing metadata, is elsewhere on the internet, or by looking at the other uploads of the user and whether they a suspicious. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:Dylsss|Dylsss]]<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">([[User talk:Dylsss|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylsss|contribs]])</span></sup></span> 14:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
-@Dylsss Thank you for this explanation -  I will now be more vigilant when uploading images [[User:Bakeaholic|Bakeaholic]] ([[User talk:Bakeaholic|talk]]) 14:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
+[[User:Dylsss|Dylsss]]Thank you for this explanation -  I will now be more vigilant when uploading images [[User:Bakeaholic|Bakeaholic]] ([[User talk:Bakeaholic|talk]]) 14:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County.jpg]]====