Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

File:New GBK Main Stadium from Drone Jan 2018.jpg

Non-free image of the newly renovated Gelora Bung Karno Stadium which has two copyright issues which need to be resolved: the copyright status of the staidium, and the copyright status of the photo.

The first issue has to do with whether there is any copyright on the actual design of the stadium. In some countries such as the c:COM:FOP#United States, there is no copyright protection for building such as this which means they can be freely photographed. However, this might not be the case for Indonesia where this staidium is located per c:COM:FOP#Indonesia. I've asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#FoP in Indonesia, but haven't gotten definite response. If stadiums such as this (especially ones owned/operated by the Indonesian Government) are not eligible for copyright protect under Indonesian law, then all that matters if the copyright status of the photo. If, however, it is deemed to be eligible for copyright protection, then probably needs to be treated as non-free or perhaps as {{FoP-USonly}}. The file was uploaded as {{non-free architectural work}} which no longer is applicable since the construction has been completed. The "non-free architectural work" template suggests using "FoP-USonly" in that case of countries there is no FoP for buildings. If that's the case, then this probably can be treated as PD locally for Wikipedia, but whether the file can be kept depends upon the copyright status of the photo.

So, the copyright status of the photo needs to be sorted out. The file is sourced to Instagram and Instagram's licensing terms is not usually compatible with WP:COPY or c:COM:L. I cannot find anything on the photo or the account holders page which says that this particular photo has been released under a free license as the non-free use rationale is claiming. So, OTRS verification is probably needed for the photo since it is clearly a WP:DERIVATIVE. If it cannot be OTRS verified, then it needs to be deleted regardless of the copyright status of the stadium. If the stadium is "FoP-USonly", then OTRS verification is still needed per WP:NFCC#1 because someone else could take a photo of the same stadium for identification purposes and then release it under a free license. There are also various freely licensed photos of the stadium being used thoughout the article. The copyright licensing of these could possibly be wrong, but as long as they are not deleted from Commons, NFCC#1 says that any of them could be used in lieu of a non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, the picture was taken by a drone, and to fly drones in such area (government-owned) is quite difficult here, if you do not have any credentials or permission to do so (the photographer did have as he was the field worker at the renovation). While there is no other picture taken from above, I think it is necessary to give this a shot until someone upload such picture under free-license -- Flix11 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free host city logos in 2018 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship

Clear decorative use of various non-free logos in 2018 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship#Host selection. Non-free use of images in an image gallery markup is almost never allowed per WP:NFG because the images typically lack the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and also do not meet WP:NFCC#3a. File:Italy-Bulgaria 2018 WCH.png is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox, so these individual host cities are not need for that despite the mistaken claim being made in each file's non-free use rationale. If there were individual artilcles written about each of these host cities, then perhaps the non-free use of the files in those articles would make sense. There's nothing, however, in the main tournament article about these hosts cities or more importantly about these individual logos which requires that they need to be see by the reader. Text is more that sufficient in this case per WP:FREER for identifying the individual host cities. Suggest delete for all files. Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The uploader has been notified of this discussion per common practice, but the account is currently under an indefinite block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free Irish Sea Scout Flags

Non-free images of flags being used in a decorative image gallery markup in Sea Scouts (Scouting Ireland)#Irish Sea Scout Flag. This type of non-free use is almost never allowed as a rule per WP:NFG because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost always lacking. This does not appear to be an exception to that rule, and the little written about the flags is not only unsourced, it doesn't really require the reader see the individual images per WP:NFCC#1. There is also an issue with WP:NFCC#3a since apparently the same logo/symbol is used on all the flags as File:Sea Scouting Emblem (Scouting Ireland).svg being used in the main infobox, and multiple images of the basically the same symbol is not needed. So, if more sourced content about these flags can be added then perhaps it might be possible to keep one or two of them at the most; otherwise, I suggest delete for all.

Finally, it might also be possible to recreate freely licensed versions of these which are sufficient for identification purposes much like is sometimes done for coats of arms. Most of the individual elements used in these flags look they wouldn't be protected by copyright; for example, there may be images of the Irish flag, an anchor, a Fleur-de-Lis and a shamrock on Commons which can be used to create a reasonable representation of the flag. It's also possible the the entire symbol itself is old enough to be PD which means a non-free file for any of these flags in not needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realizing there's no stopping you once you go on one of your image deletion sprees, I vote we keep the most representative one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RIPPED is not really a justification for non-free use, and the files were only nominated for discussion by me. If they are deleted it will be because the admin who closes the discussion felt the arguments in favoring of keeping the files were insufficient. If you can clarify why you feel all or some of these files meet WP:NFCC#8 and why multiple files are not an issue per WP:NFCC#3a, then you can revise the non-free use rationales accordingly. FWIW, I did look for stuff before starting this nomination, but the organization's official website is down and all you get from searching the images themselves are Wikipedia mirrors. I was able to find this, but the ensign shown in that PDF is different from the one in the article so it doesn't help per WP:NFCC#4. So, if you know how or where to find such content, then please add it yourself or post it on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The section is not decorative, it is informing the reader on what the four sea scout flags look like. Also, the flags are and images are very very different....containing the same logo does anot affect that. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The ensign is of a different design with a different emblem, but the other three are essentially the same logo on the same blue background. They may have different uses and their shape may be different, but there's no sourced article content discussing their uses and there's no sourced article content discussing any difference between the flags; hence, their use is more decorative than contextual. The purpose a non-free image is not to show the reader what something looks like, but to support sourced article content either directly about the image or content whose understanding would be significantly hampered if the image was omitted. If the primary purpose of using these images is to show how the ensign differs from the flag, then three non-free images of flag(s) are not needed for that purpose. If the primary reason for showing three flags is to show the difference between a flag, pennant and a burgee, then no non-free images are not needed to accomplish that. None of the files have a proper sources, so there's no way to tell if they are actually used or just someone's creation, or more importanly to determine their copyright status per WP:NFCC#10a or WP:NFCC#4. The non-free use rationales for each file just use template bolierplate language which does not address the specifics of each use. There is already a logo being used in the main infobox for primary identification so there's no need for four more to serve that same purpose. What content in that particular section of the article makes it essential for the reader to see four non-free images? If you want to expand and add such content (preferably sourced content) to the article which discusses how the flags are different, then do so and revise the non-free use rationales accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree, but I think that we'd be going in circles if I carried this sub-thread further. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:TF Studio Final.JPG

Insufficient permission: the title of the image suggests that it was taken in or for the studio of Tim Flach, but the uploader claims to own the copyright. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]