Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

File:Mildred Seydell.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mildred Seydell.png exists and claims PD status, which is supported by the Internet Archive (who presumably knows what they're doing), indicating that the work that other image was published in is now in the public domain. With another image available for primary identification of the subject, I don't think this meets WP:NFCC anymore. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Since we don't have the original source and first publication date of this photo, it will be hard to prove its non-renewal. Felix QW (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (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:Sasson binyamin.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of the date of this photograph, whose subject died in 1989. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996. It seems ineligible for non-free use as free alternatives could be cropped from the images in commons:category:Binyamin Sasson. Felix QW (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2023 (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:Yehudit Simhonit.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of the date of this orphaned photograph, whose subject died in 1991. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2023 (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:Levi daniel.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of the date of this photograph, whose subject died in 1995. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996.

The alternatives in commons:Category:Daniel-Yitzhak Levy are also dubious from a copyright point of view, since they will be in copyright in the US until 2064. On the other hand, while this image is taken from the Knesset gallery, whose copyright rules are very restrictive, the alternatives are from the government photo collection, whose license is much more liberal (but not free enough for Commons itself).

It would seem reasonable to me to transfer one of the Commons images here as fair use in the spirit of WP:FREER and deleting this one. Felix QW (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2023 (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:All Elite logo.png

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intricate design. Arguably a fair use file. Unused. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is literally just 3 basic letters - nothing "intricate" about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The texture can be considered to be a unique design. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent on whether a random-looking texture is creative enough in the US? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2023 (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:Susie the Little Blue Coupe.PNG

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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image is in the public domain, because I could not find a copyright renewal for the short. Since the US Copyright system works in absence of renewal, it is tough to show that it is public domain. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is already licensed as such. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I updated that. But the bot was still tagging it as being non-free. How would I resolve that? I believe it is asking for a source. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the bot is simply (and rightly) confused why a free image has a non-free use rationale attached. I have replaced it with the Information template, without prejudice to any other outcome of this discussion. I have also inserted the dedicated licensing template for this situation. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how do we close out this discussion so I can remove the notice from the image. I reverted it back to a higher quality version, because the image is public domain. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for a couple more days, it will be closed by an admin in due course. Felix QW (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2023 (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:Holy cross info.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for text in Israel. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2023 (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:Tamla Motown logo variant A.webp

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: Status quo, keep as-is -FASTILY 00:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating this logo after failed (unclear) nomination. I just still am uncertain whether it's free or non-free in the US. If non-free and then non-compliant with NFCC, then no objections to deletion. If free in only the US, then let's remain it as-is. George Ho (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks well short of the US threshold of originality, but if it is a British logo, then we can still treat it as a free logo but should add the US-only template to emphasize that it may not be in the public domain in its home country. Felix QW (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly free in the US. Let's tag it with PD-ineligible-USonly and keep. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2023 (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:Tamla Motown Logo.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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -FASTILY 00:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently tagged as non-free and used in Motown Chartbusters. I'm undecided about its copyright status, but I didn't realize until now that the JPEG version has existed, especially when I uploaded the WebP version. For the same reasons as the WebP one, I'm nominating this JPEG version. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks well short of the US threshold of originality, but if it is a British logo, then we can still treat it as a free logo but should add the US-only template to emphasize that it may not be in the public domain in its home country. I am not sure whether we should keep both this one and the webp version, although as both are in use I wouldn't see why not. Felix QW (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly free in the US. Let's tag it with PD-ineligible-USonly and keep. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2023 (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.