Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19

File:Song Hye-kyo at Little Black Jacket.jpg

Dubious claim of own work. Image was uploaded 7 December 2013 but was being posted on internet forums before then. For example, see [1] where the same image is posted 8 Nov 2013. Whpq (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that File:Jauregui in 2015.jpg is another image where uploader is claiming to hold copyright, but in that case is a clear copyright violation as it comes from Getty Images so the file nominated here is not an isloated incident. -- Whpq (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Come September.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Last Forever (How I Met Your Mother).jpg

Fails NFUR NPCC #8: it's not used educationally. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole series is about Ted meeting The Mother. After 208 episodes, this is shown. The meeting of the two is the best way to illustrate the episode. Pedrohoneto (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1965 War the Australian Newspaper.jpg

The uploader falsely claims that the source is "PAF Museum, Karachi", even when the image is rather obviously taken from a Pakistani blog.[2]

The user has a history of uploading copyright violations on both the English Wikipedia and Commons. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You haven't explained what leads you to believe the images are lifted from the blog. It could also be vice versa. Also, the resolution of both pics appears to be different. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted on that website years before the uploading user ripped them off here. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the resolution does not matter at all, because vector graphics are scalable, they can be scaled at any size without losing quality. And it's worth looking at his upload log,[4] which shows that he uploaded File:Pakistani Forces captured Kishangarh Fort in 1965 War.png and File:Captured Indian Centurion tank in 1965 War near Chawinda, Sep 1965.png on the same day, both of which he took from here. Given this user's history of uploading copyvios both here and on Commons, it's safe to say that he intentionally uploaded these files with false source and authorship claims in order to make them look fine. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MBlaze, I don't understand your argument here. It's common for Blogs to use material like this. What are you even suggesting? --Xinjao (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjao the image was copied from a blog which is protected with copyrights. And since the image itself comes from an unreliable source it has no place in encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ripped off from an unreliable blog and provided a fake source "PAF Museum", which is not even possible because the image clearly matches with what the uploading user copied from the blog.. same content same position and so on. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both the images are copyright violations, and I can't see how they can be used in a "fair use" way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since finding pictures of that time and especially times of war are extremely difficult and rare, it seems to satisfy fair use, at least for now until some unpublished free use source turns up in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear copyright violation from a source known for nothing but hoax. WP:ILIKEIT is always a bad reason to vote keep. Capitals00 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping and WP:NFCC#8 for the captured tank image. The newspaper image is non-free and being used with a rationale of "It will explain the Position of Pakistani Forces." The image includes copyrighted elements with nothing to do with the 1965 war so WP:NFCC#3 is an issue. More serious is that the image in now way supports the stated purpose as it provides no insight to any reader as to the positioning of Pakistani forces. The tank image is used with a rationale of "It will show the image of captured tank which alternative cannot show." but there is no discussion aboi=ut a captured tank or why it is an important element of the battle. It;s use is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: The Australian clipping is useful in the sense that it describes a foreign newspaper's reporting of a major battle from the 1965 war. So I disagree with your assertion that it is not relevant to the context (WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8). The tank image is also entirely in context of the Chawinda battle. I don't see how this requirement is any different from File:Pattonb.jpg, File:Basantar2.jpg and File:Longewala Tank.jpg, all of which are being used similarly. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those files are not ripped off from unreliable source and fall under fair use unlike these 2. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited." The 3 images are in clear violation of stated copyright. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: The stated purpose with which to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping is to explain Pakistani force positions. It does no such thing. Your assertion that it is useful to show foreign coverage is not what is stated in the FUR. And ieven if it were, there is nothing in the article that addresses foreign news coverage so it too would faill point 8. As for the tank image, it may be a photo of a cpatured tank from the battle, but there is no soruced commentary about the image with which to satisfy point 8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This file was also nominated before, but it seems to have been brought up and reverted based on WP:AN [5]. Would appreciate if this could be looked into. Mar4d (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So deletion tag is not nomination. On WP:AN there was no decision but we agreed that HIAS(uploading user) had not provided source. He never completed those terms of providing sources or permission and just edit warred over deletion tag. Proves that he ripped off images in bad faith and was never able to convince otherwise. And one more of his concerning image[6] has been deleted already but these 2 are left. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant copyvio. The reliability of the source blog is also very questionable and makes the images a candidate for possible hoax. Razer(talk) 08:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both the images contain no meta data to suggest that they are copyrighted nor does the blog makes any such claim. The blog itself lists Wikipedia among others as it reference. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel and Luxury Housing Project, UAE.jpg

Claimed as own work, but sourced to Photobucket. Who took the photo? If uploaders, it should be directly uploaded to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:EcoTech City.jpg

Claimed as own work, but sourced to Photobucket. Who took the photo? If uploaders, it should be directly uploaded to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:User-Douglas-Spencer-at-Picocon2004.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: Withdrawn Non Admin Closure: Uploaders intetnion seems to be clear as they responded. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, userspace image, Sourced to a Photo-bucket page which gave NO indication as to the claimed authorship or indication of the license shown on Wikipedia. It was also not possible to actually view the image directly shown owing to "technical measures" implemented by Photo-Bucket on nominally free accounts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone tell me where to upload a file which I can personally place in the public domain, a location which will prove acceptable to ShakespeareFan00? DougS (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In follow-up, I've been able to finally view the image.

To the uploader, I am willing to accept that you asked the relevant photographer directly ( i.e work for hire) for this photo, but it would be advised to get the photographer concerned to confirm this, leaving a note on the file description page, or by an appropriate e-mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org.

Apologies for the inconvenience, but Wikipedia likes to be sure about image media it's using, even when it would be obvious to other people that it was intended to be under a "free" license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Uploaders intent seems to be clear as they responded here. This FFD can be closed as kept. OTRS confirmation advised.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2017 (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:Jtf cap med logo.jpg

unused, superseded by File:Seal of Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical.png FASTILY 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Privatization Iran.jpg

This either needs to be refactored or deleted per the result at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_January_5#File:Modern_tabriz03.jpg. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michèle Morgan in Untel Père et Fils.jpg

Copyright restored in the United States under the URAA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.jpg

This photo has a subsisting copyright in the United States because Sweden has long-standing copyright relations with the United States. This could be converted to non-free use for use in John Franklin Enders, but would need to be removed from List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The most recent Swedish copyright law was adopted in 1994, before the URAA date of 1 January 1996. According to that law, photos taken before 1 January 1969 are out of copyright. In other words, {{PD-Sweden}} files automatically comply with URAA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danielle Darrieux in Lady Chatterley's Lover.jpg

URAA restored copyright in the United States ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annette Vadim.jpg

URAA restored copyright in the United States ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geoffrey Bruce & George Finch, 1922.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[7] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[8] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:Oxygen equipment on 1922 Everest expedition.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[9] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[10] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:1922 Mount Everest expedition, second climbing party descending.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[11] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[12] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:1922 Everest expedition at Base Camp.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[13] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[14] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:General Charles Granville Bruce.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[15] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[16] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:John Noel with filming equipment, 1922.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: Keep ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image published in the US and the UK simultaneously. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Source_country, the source country is the "country which has the most significant contacts with the work" according to US and international law. The author is British, so this would be the UK. As such, this photograph's copyright was restored under the URAA. It remains copyrighted in the United States. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was first published in US and UK within 30 days (it was rushed into print to help fund the 1924 expedition) – it was actually the same imprint.[17] See Uruguay Round Agreements Act "Works simultaneously published within the United States and a treaty country were also ineligible for restoration, where "simultaneous publication" means "during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." and confirmed by Cornell.[18] So, the photos may be copyright in the UK but URAA didn't chime in because of the 1923 US publication. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2017 (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:DieForYouStarboy.jpg

Cover art not officially released by the artist and/or his label. Similar case to TheWeekndReminder.jpg, which was deleted for the same reason. Music01 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plain White T's in 2005.JPG

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Actually, a picture of a very notable band can probably be transferred to Commons. This image is valuable because it shows the band before they became famous; such images are much rarer than "post-famous" photos. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I'm still seeing source/permission issues with the image. The original source link is dead, so we can't verify that the copyright holder actually agreed to release the file into the PD. -FASTILY 17:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]