Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

File:Kurt Cobain.jpg

Originally tagged as replaceable fair use and deleted, but the uploader contested this on the grounds that "the only other picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nirvana_around_1992_(cropped).jpg) is low res and doesnt even show his face properly. it is not suited as the primary visual identification". Listing here for community input, I am neutral on the matter. ✗plicit 07:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2. In addition, to there being a freely licensed image of Cobain available on Commons which makes this or any non-free one a problem per WP:FREER, there is also a problem with item of 7 WP:NFC#UUI. This file is sourced to this website, but that is unlikely the original source of the file. The image being used on consequence.net for that interview really looks to be a crop of this image (see also for which ownership is being claimed by a stock photo company Amana Images (ja:アマナ (企業)). Amami attributes the photo to someone named "Ed Sirrs" who appears to be a professional photographer who took lots of photos of Nirvana and other bands. Images from commercial photo agencies are pretty much never allowed per NFCC#2 (WP:F7) unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary, which doesn't appear to be the case here. So, there are issues with two non-free content use criteria and only one criterion need not be met for the file to be considered non-compliant with WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disclosure that I am the one that tagged it as replaceable fair use. It appears that the only free-use photo to use at Kurt Cobain is File:Nirvana around 1992 (cropped).jpg. Is it great? No, but it is good enough, and he is quite recognizable. Short of a professional photographer releasing a photo to the public domain, or someone petitioning the Cobain estate to release something, this is what we have. There are hurdles to what one can do for a long-dead rock icon's photographs. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet WP:NFCC#2 as noted by Marchjuly. WP:NFCC#1 is debatable as the image quality for the free image is marginal for the purposes of visual identification, but that is not relevant for this image as it has failed satisfy at least one non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESA 2009 coffee break.JPG

Contested PROD. Asserted to be copyrighted by "Per Rasmussen" per exif. Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: Have you even tried to contact Thore Husfeldt off-wiki? He was the local organization chair of the event from which this is a photo, suggesting it was likely taken at his direction as part of the event, and he is not difficult to find off-wiki, but I suspect he does not monitor his on-wiki account much. He may well know how to contact Rasmussen or have more details on why he thinks it was properly licensed. From your actions (nominating this for speedy deletion without telling anyone about it, leaving us to find out only after the speedy expired, and now nominating it for deletion again, after having been explicitly asked to notify article talk pages when you do, instead only leaving a notification on the uploader's talk page, and making zero attempt at being helpful in response to Husfeldt's request for help at his talk page) it would appear that you are much more interested in deleting stuff than in assuming good faith of long-past uploaders or in improving the encyclopedia by cleaning up its licensing of useful images without resorting to deleting them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Firstly, an uploader is obliged to make all sourcing/licensing as clear as possible. Next, I'm using twinkle to nominate files for deletion, be it {{di-no permission}}, {{PROD}} or {{FFD}}, so I assume that having to notify the uploader is enough. Lastly, I don't monitor talk pages and Husfeldt didn't ping me when replying to the automated message left on their talk page. And to keep everything in one place. Thore Husfeldt, possible for you to send in your permission or identify who Rasmussen is and get them to send in their permission to the volunteer response team? Thanks. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: There's a template {{deletable image-caption}} that can be added to files used in article when there's a caption to which it can be added, but it's not required to do so. It's also not required to add a notification to an article's talk page regarding images being nominated for speedy deletion or nominated for discussion here at FFD. It's a nice thing to do perhaps, but not required. So, asking someone to do so doesn't mean they have to do so. Having posted that, it might be a good idea for you (=Minorax) to keep in mind that (unlike when you prod an article) prodding a file for deletion often can go unnoticed until the image is actually deleted and it's syntax is removed from the article. Some WikiProjects keep track of files which are prodded or otherwise nominated for deletion that have the project's banner added to the file's talk page, but the majority don't. So, adding the same notification that you add to the uploader's user talk page to the article's talk page can often help avoid misunderstandings and claims that you're trying to pull a fast one by not properly notifying people. You not required to do so, but it can sometimes help avoid unnecessary drama. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you seem not to have read it the first time: Husfeldt is not difficult to find off-wiki. That might be a more effective way of contacting him than leaving messages on a web site that he has edited once in the last three months. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be necessary to contact someone outside of Wikipedia about something like this and I don't think others should be required to do so. Whatever upside there is to doing things like that doesn't seem (in my opinion) to outweigh the potential downside. If the uploader has posted their personal contact information somewhere on their user talk page and has stated it's OK to contact them outside of Wikipedia, then maybe that could be tried if someone wants to; otherwise, there's the potential for WP:OUTING, even if its unintentional and well-meaning. It also means that we'd be asking the person who tagged the file for deletion to reveal who they are to someone else outside of Wikipedia unless they've sent things up to contact others outside of Wikipedia in a way that allows them not to. Notifying the uploader on their user talk page is more than sufficient in my opinion. Even if the uploader doesn't see the notification until after the file in question has been deleted (regardless of how), there are ways for it to be restored if it turns out the uploader has something to add that would've allowed the file to be kept when originally discussed. FWIW, I don't think Minorax did anything improper ~~and they followed accepted practice~~ or acted in bad faith; they followed accepted practice when it comes to tagging~~prodding~~ a file~~stuff~~ for deletion. If some members of the community feel more needs effort needs to be made when it comes to notifying others about files being nominated for deletion, then that should be discussed at WT:FFD, WT:PROD or some other page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for clarification purposes. -- 12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]

On the contrary, I think that if we want to make this process useful, and not merely a bureaucratic trap to flush out old uploads merely for being old, we should make an effort to contact people who might have contributed years ago and then moved on. Leaving a note on a talk page is likely to fail at doing that, and act as a formality rather than a useful exercise. If you want to clarify what they meant, the only way to do that is to ask them. If you want them to have read your mind from 12 years ago into the future, and already answered the questions you now want clarification for, so that no need for contact is ever necessary, then you are setting up impossibilities as a way to force the process to fail rather than trying to be constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Like Marchjuly said, I did my part by notifying the uploader. Considering how scary the internet is, I have no plans on revealing who I am to random Wikipedians and will still hesitate if that Wikipedian is a steward/admin/someone who is highly trusted. As stated at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Deleting_images, point 1. states consider contacting and point 5. states give proper notification. I considered contacting the uploader by giving them a notification (albeit being an automated one) so I did my part as required. Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge my mistake as stated in point 3. which is to list this at FFD instead of just tagging it as no permission. I respect your choice of siding the uploader on this and I would like you to respect mine for not contacting the uploader personally. If you think a {{di-no permission}} or {{di-no source}} tag doesn't get enough attention, considering making an RFC to abolish these procedures and redirect it to FFD. Thanks. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader wrote on his talk page "I created this picture/file". Minorax chose to ignore that response, fail to answer it, assume bad faith of a respected computer science researcher (who happens to have been the organizer of the 2009 event the photo is from), and escalate the deletion attempts, all because of a mismarked piece of copyright data on an old upload. It is difficult to understand how this sort of behavior could in any way be seen as an improvement to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it would be probably a good idea for the uploader to email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT. Having copyright authorship verified by VRT will make it clear that file is OK as licensed and will avoid something like this from happening in the future. Asking such a thing doesn't seem to be too big of a burden to place on the uploader/copyright holder. This file also probably doesn't need to kept as a local file for use only on English Wikipedia and should be moved to Commons once it's licensing has been verified. Commons will have no problems hosting this with VRT verification and it could possibly then be used by other language Wikipedia's or WMF projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The camera is indeed ITU’s (Per Rasmussen, who was parts of Facilities Management and has long retired). Per and I took a ton of pictures during ESA using that camera; I took the one under discussion for the Wikipedia page exactly for the purpose of illustrating the Wiki page. Short of looking Per up in the phone book and trying to contact him I don’t know what to do. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlberguinnGreenRoom.jpg

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. No indication whether Cedric Anderson is the uploader as well. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platform Side2e.JPG

Orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. House Blaster^talk 23:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]