Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12

December 12

File:Mon Witt ALS (cropped).jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uploader (myself) is recsinding copyright privelage and wishes to delete this image. Giphmedia (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Diab al-Mashi.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Contacting the estate goes beyond reasonable. The image size can be dealt with by removing the restriction on a bot-assisted resolution reduction. Whpq (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural open since only the tagger (who has been blocked for disruptively nominating files for deletion, if I read their Talk page correctly) and the uploader (myself) have commented on the file's Talk page re a speedy tag. For context, this is a still from a film, which I compressed quite a bit myself (though the actual dimensions of the image went unchanged), being used in the biography of a dead person (Diab al-Mashi). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you uploaded it so may as well have just speedy deleted if you wanted it gone. I can see a template has been added but yes there's no need to discuss this here. Edit: Sorry I read that wrong so actually Keep.This0k (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For convenience, the original CSD rationale was

Criterion 2, because the file is used in a manner that conflicts with the market role of the original copyrighted media

Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice[1]

—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! I contest these, because the original media is a film that's over 40 minutes long, and its market role is not overlapped by a lower-resolution still. Certainly the "entire work" is not here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCI #10 because it is not unreasonable to seek a free use license from a person who owns the copyright in a photograph of the deceased, who only died in 2009. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…what, someone from the Assad regime? There are like, three photos of this guy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Permission could be sought from the filmmaker. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He died in 2011! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His estate then. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, unfortunately, no estate controlling the copyright of Omar Amiralay’s films. Is this a normal standard for fair use images of dead people? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I googled the film. Presumably the legit streaming companies distributing the film got permission or a license from someone. In my view, the standard is what the policy says: take reasonable steps to try to get permission. Until that happens, I think this should be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no streaming companies distributing the film! The MUBI page is a database page; it does not stream the film. “Reasonable steps” has never included tracking down an estate and asking them to release the film, or a still of the film. That is not “reasonably likely”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The timeframes involved are way beyond where we'd expect to try to see out a request for a free image. It would be one thing if the photographer/filmmaker was still alive but that's clearly not the case. — Masem (t) 04:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's my view too. Do you have a vote on whether the image should be deleted or kept? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This was a well-known, award-winning filmmaker. Presumably someone manages his IP. I think policy requires taking the reasonable step of contacting them for permission. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's won awards? Why does this not apply to, say, File:Lana Del Rey - Summertime Sadness.ogg? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think policy requires taking the reasonable step of contacting them for permission: Can you cite the relevant policy? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, policy does not require that we contact the estate of someone living in a country whose government just collapsed following a decade-long civil war before we accept a file. If the question is Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?, and the answer appears to be a simple no. This can change in the future; should the copyright holder of some photograph depicting him change their mind and release that photo at a later time under a free license, we'd have to switch to that one. But we can't create photos of this individual and, absent someone who took a photo 10+ years ago deciding to release a photo under a suitable license, there is no free equivalent.
Additionally, I believe that a screengrab from a 40-minute movie, particularly one in the low quality we have here, respects both commercial rights of the movie maker and is minimal in nature and extent in terms of what we're copying.
For these reasons, I see no reason to delete this file, which should be kept as non-free for use in identifying the photograph subject as such in our article about him. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pixels in the image exceeds the recommended number in WP:IMAGERES by 12 times. — Ирука¹³ 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nepal Premier League(2024).png

Not a generic logo of the general event, as the inclusion of sponsors in the logo mean that the logo will potentially change season on season. A logo without all the sponsors would also probably be below threshold of originality, and so this fails WP:NFCC#1. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this new logo is updated when Cricket Association of Nepal singed with Siddhartha Bank for 5 years [2][3][4] and definitely logo will be updated in future when there is change.Godknowme1 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Shpageeza Cricket League.png

No evidence that this a logo specific to the 2024 season, we cannot simply presume that because sponsor logos are included on the logo (as the sponsors may or may not be the same in future events). As such, fails WP:GETTY point 17 (generic logo being used in specific season article) and also WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of evidence that this logo for 2024 season as Afghanistan Cricket Board media release and other sites used this logo [5][6][7][8] I think this logo is used as wikipedia policy.Godknowme1 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all shows that it is a logo used in the 2024 season, not that it is a logo specifically and only for the 2024 season, which is what is required to meet all WP:NFCC. 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Love Rock 'n' Roll.jpg

Cover art not contextually significant to the whole recording that performed poorly in charts or the whole song popularized by one of prior artists/singers. George Ho (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. This0k (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Love Rock N Roll sample.ogg

File's contextual significance to the whole song, the whole recording associated by the file, and the whole album questionable. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep at I Love Rock N' Roll (album),delete at I Love Rock N' Roll, the song however. Also edit on me saying it's really well known and highly notable, my bad but I have since added more information cited by reliable sources to the sample used at the album.This0k (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit your comment after someone has responded, please underline the added text and strike removed text. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being "really well known and highly notable" isn't a reason to violate copyright. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that the song's audio sample is notable based off it's use in the article because the song itself is highly well known and notable but I understand how that can come off as a bias. This0k (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're biased. The non-free content policy requires that audio samples be "accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary". That is not provided in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added significant commentary on the album article for the song. The song article however I feel it's really not needed and may as well be deleted but I think it should be kept at I Love Rock N' Roll (album). This0k (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't contextual information about the audio clip. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do your changes improve the sample's compliance to this criterion? From what I see, you favor the sample as some representation of the whole album. Unfortunately, the sample is of just one song/track. How are the text and the cover art insufficient without this sample? George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Myth Wukong, princess.png

The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).

It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kang Jin Star.webp

This non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Plots subsection primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. While the Development section briefly mentions the game's inspiration from real-life buildings and statues, using this specific non-free screenshot is not essential to convey this information. The screenshot's current placement in the Plots section is inappropriate and does not directly contribute to the understanding of the game's narrative. Therefore, the non-free screenshot should be removed. Wcam (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lori and George Schappell.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined F7. Should be deleted per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCI #10 because it is not unreasonable to seek a free use license from a person who owns the copyright in a photograph of the recently deceased twins. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No free images of the twins exist and there are few recent photographs. Thus far, requests to relicense copyrighted images have been unsuccessful. A free image would be preferable here, but NFCCP and NFCI#10 are satisfied. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 05:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people are refusing to license an image or not responding, I think that strengthens concerns about interfering with commercial opportunities. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it just establishes that a free alternative is not realistic. --Cold Season (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the photographer, who is a professional photographer, making this even more problematic in my view. I presume that he wants to maintain commercial opportunities for use of this photograph. NFCI #10 and NFCCP don't give us free reign to ignore copyright just because the subject of the photograph happens to be dead. The twins died not long ago and it is not reasonable to assume "that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#2. See this article which credits this as coming through the Associate Press. -- Whpq (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an AP photo per WP:NFCI #10:
Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".
—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.