Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Ecoute Screenshot.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this here for WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. There is already a fair use image of the album cover on the article which identifies the song. So it seems like this is unnecessary and therefore would violate 3a as there is more than the minimum number of items necessary. It is also just a screenshot from the music video. It does not add any contextual significance that I can see. Its omission would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article on the song. So it would seem like it can't be used. Majora (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2016 (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:ZSU-57-2 front, top and side elevations.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. {{PD-RU-exempt}} (which is what is being referred to here) does not apply to mere photographies and {{PD-Russia}} does not appear to apply either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain-ness of this image is in question. The reasoning is certainly false. Just because something is on display doesn't 'make it public domain. But that doesn't mean it actually isn't in the public domain due to age. Which is why I am bringing it here. Perhaps {{PD-URAA}}? I'm not all that familiar with Russian copyright. Would like some feedback, otherwise delete as a precaution. Majora (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph diagram provided to government-and-funded war museum for public display = Public domain? Source: Kubinka Tank Museum--NotLessOrEqual (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NotLessOrEqual: No. That is not how copyright works at all. --Majora (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Diagram at museum gave a date of '1969'. Whether this is in regards to the vehicle on display or the diagram itself is not noted.IMPORTANT NOTE: Any works/designs created by people regarding eg. Politics, military etc. in Soviet States pre-1991 are automatically state (government) owned due to being a socialist/communist state unless post-1991. (Therefore public domain?) --NotLessOrEqual (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2016 (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:Stebonheath Park Main Grandstand.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact match of photo here https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/stebonheath-park-llanelli?select=DbGL2b935ddEAElPuHrd5g (cropped and sharpened). So own work is in doubt. Majora (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2016 (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:Stebonheath Park Gilbert Lloyd Stand.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Own work is in doubt. Just like their other upload. Exact match found elsewhere on the Internet. See http://www.footballgroundmap.com/ground/stebonheath-park/llanelli Majora (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2016 (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:Spirit of Ecstasy installation by Paweł Wocial ZKM Karlsruhe Car Culture.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern art piece licence under CC with no proof of said license. Almost certainly the uploader SPA does not have any experience of free licencing and chose CC without proper justification. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 8 September 2016 (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:Look at Me (new Capitoline Wolf), Paweł Wocial, Kunstenfestival Watou.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: Relicense as fair use. Majora (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern art piece licence under CC with no proof of said license. Almost certainly the uploader SPA does not have any experience of free licencing and chose CC without proper justification. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Seems like something that should be relicensed as non-free, given that the article is about the art piece. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, yes, but then it will get deleted anyway just like the one above... I don't see the difference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I did think that non-free use may work only after deleting the first file, slow thinkingly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 19 September 2016 (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:Paweł Wocial.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A thumbnail photo of an artist, uploaded under CC with no proof of said license. Almost certainly the uploader SPA does not have any experience of free licencing and chose CC without proper justification. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 8 September 2016 (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:Skaters meadow.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: This issue will be handled by OTRS, closing here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free sign may be too prominent to make this image free. A picture of the site without the sign can be found at File:Skaters' Meadow - geograph.org.uk - 614487.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notice enhances the photograph. I have asked the Wildlife Trusts if they have any objection to the photo. Southdevonian (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildlife Trusts are fine with it. Southdevonian (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Southdevonian: Please forward permission to WP:OTRS. Kelly ^hi! 15:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure quite what you mean by that. I am happy to forward the email if necessary but could not find an address so I have posted a message on the OTRS noticeboard. Southdevonian (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this address somewhere permissions-en@wikimedia.org and forwarded them the email from the charity. Southdevonian (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added {{OTRS pending}} to the file. This discussion can now be closed while the OTRS process deals with the permission. Kelly ^hi! 11:55, 10 September 2016 (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:Bruce Philosophy coleman this picture was tooking at my Highs school in the year 1999-2000.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 11:17, 8 September 2016 (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:Brymptonboat.gif

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. Aside from the other arguments, this image falls under commons:Template:PD-heirs (which does not exist locally) and even on Commons we need some reason to doubt the validity of such a claim, reasons which don't exist here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is going on with this file - it was deleted by @TLSuda: following a community discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_13#File:Brymptonboat.gif. The Commons copy was also deleted as a result of discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brymptonboat.gif. However, the file was restored by @Jonathunder: on the same day without any summary in the log. The same concerns raised in the original discussions still seem to apply. Kelly ^hi! 11:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to have been a discussion on TLSuda's talk page here. Kelly ^hi! 12:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you found the discussion and I'm sure you read it. As I said at the time, the uploader--a terrifically well-established editor--says his great-granddad took it and it is obviously a very old photo. Do you doubt that? What's the concern? Jonathunder (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concern was stated by @Stefan2: in the previous discussion, and agreed with by TLSuda (and me, incidentally). Process-wise, this should probably have been taken to WP:DRV if you disagreed with the policy basis of the closure rather than simply reversing it. Putting that aside, WP policy is to require evidence for copyright claims, see for instance WP:F11. Kelly ^hi! 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how, exactly, is @Giano: expected to get permission from his deceased ancestor who took this ancient photograph? When does common sense apply? Jonathunder (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we're not seeking "permission" but evidence of copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 13:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of copyright status is that Giano has told you that his great-grandfather, who died in 1918, took the photograph. As Nikkimaria has carefully explained in the previous discussion, that makes the image {{PD-US-unpublished}} which is perfectly sufficient to meet copyright concerns on the English Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that what Giano says is not true, let's hear it. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be eligible for {{PD-US-unpublished}} it must have been created prior to 1896 if the author is anonymous or unknown. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that. But what part of "Giano's great-grandfather" is equivalent to "anonymous or unknown" on the planet where you live? Or are you casting doubts on Giano's parentage? --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not anonymous or unknown? What is the photographer's name?^{{rhetorical question - Kelly ^hi! 14:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC))} How could the status be verified per WP:V? Kelly ^hi! 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you a warning about WP:OUTING. If you make any further requests for Giano's family name, I'll ask for administrative action to have you blocked. @Bishonen, Iridescent, and Drmies: - just as a heads-up for now. Now, with that out of the way, let's call the photographer "Great-grandfather Calogero". He died in 1918 and that is more than 70 years ago, which is all that's needed for PD-US-unpublished. WP:V (which is a policy for article content, btw, not images) does not require that everybody can verify a fact, only that somebody can. You already have Giano's verification that Calogero took the photograph around 1900 and died in 1918. I don't see any more reason to insist on greater detail than that, considering we take every uploader's word for it when they place a {{PD-self}} template on their images. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so dramatic. I'm not asking for Giano's real name, I'm demonstrating that the author is in fact, anonymous. I'll note that in TLSuda's talk page discussion, TLSuda offered a way for the copyright to be verified anonymously via OTRS ticket, one which Bishonen apparently thought was reasonable. This offer was met with insults and childish behavior. So be it, but without verifiable authorship information, the photo has to be treated as non-free under the precautionary principle. Copyright policy applies to everyone who edits here. Kelly ^hi! 21:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That method of "verification" would still require AGF: even assuming that the name provided is unique enough to verify through other avenues that they did indeed die in 1918, that wouldn't prove that they took the photo. How is that any more "verifiable" than Giano saying "my great-grandfather who died in 1918 took this"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Giano was trying to "put one over on us", he could have plausibly said "taken by my great-grandfather around 1885" and we'd have none of this rigmarole. But because he tried to be as honest as possible, as well as accurate, he gave his best estimate of the date and explained that as his great-grandfather's heir, he believed now owned the copyright. Why on earth would we all accept an inaccurate 1885 date without blinking, but insist on questioning the bona fides of a longstanding, valued contributor when he's been as open as anyone could be? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the building no longer exists, an alternative solution would be to license it as {{non-free historic image}} and write a non-free use rationale. Kelly ^hi! 17:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. We don't require people verify "per WP:V" that they are the photographer of an image claimed as {{PD-self}}, etc unless there is reasonable cause to believe that they aren't, because we respect the rights of contributors to remain anonymous/pseudonymous. In this case, revealing the name of the photographer could reasonably result in the loss of an editor's anonymity, and thus far no one has presented any evidence to suggest that the editor is lying about the photographer's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has to present evidence that the "editor is lying". Per WP:IUP the uploader must be able to prove the public domain claim. It's analogous to requiring a citation for a claim made in text. We don't allow anyone to disregard that requirement even if they are a longstanding editor. If the uploader declines to provide proof, that's OK, but the photo would then be treated as non-free. Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding per ping above) Kelly, that's a seriously warped reading of policy and a serious jettisoning of WP:AGF. Yes, I'm aware you're an admin at Commons, but you're not at Commons now and our rules, customs and practices are considerably less wild-west. Both policy and practice have always been that we assume uploaders are telling the truth about the origins of whatever file they're uploading unless it can either be demonstrated to the contrary (usually by showing that the file has been lifted from elsewhere), or shown that there are strong grounds for suspicion (a photo which has clearly been taken at a venue or event to which the claimed photographer could not have had access, watermarking of some kind showing someone else claiming copyright, etc). The Wikipedia Community has no way of knowing that I took File:Bruce Castle toilets.JPG myself and haven't downloaded it from a "public toilets on the grounds of English country houses" fan-site, but assumes that I'm telling the truth, and this situation is exactly analogous. You appear to be operating on the presumption that image uploaders are lying about the origins of images unless they can demonstrate to your (unreasonable) definition of 'proof' that they're not. I'd very strongly urge you to drop this particular stick; Giano would be quite within his rights to challenge this deletion all the way, and your default position of assuming bad faith, coupled with an attempt to force an anonymous editor to disclose their identity (and before you start accusing me of being "dramatic" as well, What is the photographer's name? is a direct quote from you), is not a position which would survive scrutiny by Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Before you file your ArbCom request, you might want to read this article. Kelly ^hi! 13:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, I think you'll find Iridescent already knows what rhetorical means. Please be aware that refactoring your comments to add "rhetorical question" after other editors have commented on it could be considered as "gaming the system". Fortunately many of us will AGF about that. Nevertheless, if you want to make sure other editors take your question as rhetorical, you're going to have to add the rider a bit sooner than 17 hours after asking it. --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC):Ad[reply]
Thanks, advice from experienced Wikipedians is always appreciated. I should have realized not everyone could understand the point I was trying to make. Kelly ^hi! 18:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{PD-US-unpublished}} per uploader, despite the stunning lack of AGF displayed in the nomination. Jonathunder (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stunningly bad faith nomination. If I choose, I could put names to most of the people in the boat, but I don't choose. It's a wonder anyone ever bothers to upload anything to Wikipedia. I can assure you that is anyone owns a copyright to that picture, it is me. Incidentally, that house wasn't demolished and is still happily standing. Giano (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2016 (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:Bishop Stopfords School (aerial view).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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, no evidence uploader is photographer. Kelly ^hi! 12:16, 8 September 2016 (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:IPhone5SLogo.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this file is unused and better, vector version is already on Commons: c:File:iPhone 5s Logo.svg Carniolus (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (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:Bullring birmingham.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Clearer images available at Commons:Category:Selfridges Building, Birmingham. Kelly ^hi! 14:51, 8 September 2016 (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:Bullring Night.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: No consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, blurry. Kelly ^hi! 14:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could not find a similar replacement for this. The blur is not noticeable when used in say, 250px. Reh man 00:03, 9 September 2016 (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:BurnsidePark.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in Canada. Kelly ^hi! 15:09, 8 September 2016 (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:Julie Plawecki.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works of the Michigan state government are not pubic domain. January (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2016 (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:Buxtontownhall.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Clearer photos available in Commons:Category:Buxton town hall. Kelly ^hi! 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commons has clearer ones. Reh man 00:01, 9 September 2016 (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:Zakir Məcidov.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 as fair use. Deryck C. 10:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation, as image is found at http://www.milliqahramanlar.az/hero/134, where there is a clear copyright notice. ★ Bigr Tex 20:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relicensed as non-free, shall add an NFUR
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 8 September 2016 (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:Leftenan Adnan Saidi.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo, Adnan Saidi, has been dead since 1942. It's therefore highly unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder as stated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2016 (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:Yusof Ishak King Bhumibol and Lee Kuan Yew.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This historic photo from 1962 is highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work as stated. The uploader's other images have the same questionable provenance as being his own work. I was able to find sources online for a couple of them and nominated for F9 speedy deletion. Here are the remainder:

File:Yusof Ishak King Bhumibol and Lee Kuan Yew.jpg: historic photo from 1962;
File:President Yusof Ishak NDP 1966.jpg: historic photo from 1966;
File:Young Yusof Ishak.png : Photo taken in 1940;
File:Tun Yusof Ishak with religious leaders.jpg from 1960;
File:H.E. Mr. Hon Sui Sen.jpg from 1965;
File:Touring of Jurong Industrial Estate.jpg from 1965;
File:Tun President Encik Haji Yusof bin Ishak.jpg formal portrait from 1965;
File:Tun President Haji Yusof bin Ishak.jpg formal portrait from 1965;
File:Tun Haji Yusof bin Ishak.jpg from 1959;
File:Pramleewiki.jpg : Publicity still; subject has been dead since 1973. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that some of the photos might have been public domain - an image from 1940 would likely to have been public domain if it was published before 1987, also perhaps ones from the 1950s, someone should check first before deleting. Hzh (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These are definitely not the uploader's "own work". For example, File:Touring of Jurong Industrial Estate.jpg has a watermark showing it was taken from the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) website. As far as I know NAS requires explicit permission even if the copyright status is not known. It is possible that the other images without a watermark were reproductions of the NAS images published in other media (which had taken permission). The one image from 1940, I am not sure what is the source or even if it is authentic. As such, I think delete is a safe option. I also think the uploader should be warned. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2016 (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:HillaryMedal.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. OTRS confirmed. Majora (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Nepal. See c:COM:FOP#Nepal. Image is 3D artwork (a Nepalese medal) so we would need the permission of the artist. Majora (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the photo. (talk

I commissioned the medal and gave the copyright to Mountain Legacy. You could ask Dr. Kumar Mainali (president of Mountain Legacy) for permission: <email removed> Seth Sicroff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicroff (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sicroff: It is not our job to ask permission to use it. That burden is on the uploader. Please see WP:COPYREQ and have the artist fill out a WP:CONSENT form and sent it into OTRS. --Majora (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk Dear Marjora:

Thank you for your follow-up on this issue. I have a feeling there is some misunderstanding about the legalities of this "artwork."

First of all, the artist does not own the medal that was photographed. He made a sketch. He sold me the copyright (i.e. all rights) to the sketch; he is in Kathmandu or Dolpo (a remove district of Nepal where he resides) and does not regularly use email or the Internet. I will not ask him for permission, as the sketch is mine for whatever use I choose to make of it, and asking for permission would imply otherwise. The sketch has been used as the basis for production of eight copies of the Hillary Medal by silversmiths in Kathmandu, Nepal. The silversmiths have no claim to past products they made according to their customers' instructions, and also have no right to make further copies except by my order. I doubt very much that you have permission slips on file from either the sketcher or the striker of the Nobel medal, or any other trophy or prize on Wikipedia.

To be clear, when I say I gave the copyright to Mountain Legacy, I meant only that this is my intention. We members of Mountain Legacy do not traffic in written copyright forms. I am the director of the Hillary Medal project, and make medals as they are needed. If and when I resign my position, the next director will have full authority to carry on production of Hillary Medals. You need to understand that we are dealing with a prize that originates in Nepal. There is no office of patents or copyrights that would possibly get involved in such an issue.

Finally, I would hazard a guess that the situation is quite similar in the United States. If a jeweler makes me an engagement ring according to my instructions, even helping with the design (be it ever so fancy or artistic) does he have any residual rights to the use of a photo I might take of that ring? I'm pretty sure that purchase of the piece entails full and complete possession.

If you are adamant about your objection, and there is no one to whom I may appeal your decision, I will remove the photo. Or the entire article. Frankly, I am pretty discouraged by the tenor and substance of feedback I have gotten regarding my work so far.

PS When I credit Tenzin Nurbu with the "sketch" of the Medal, perhaps I should emphasize that his sketch was based directly on a rough sketch and verbal instructions that I gave him. Were it not for the traditional nature of the story behind the sketch, I would say that the concept behind the art is mine, particularly when linked to a prize for contributions to natural and cultural conservation in mountainous regions. I do appreciate Wikipedia's punctilious approach to legal matters that might entail exposure to litigation, but in this case, your worries are entirely misplaced. The photo was made by and is owned by me, the object was designed and commissioned by me, I am project director for the program that dispenses copies of this medal. I have given my permission. This should not be a close call. Please don't obstruct for the sake of obstruction. Sicroff (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Sicroff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicroff (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sicroff (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)SicroffSicroff (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Majora,

I'm still waiting for a resolution on my Hillary Medal article. I removed the photo you objected to, despite the fact that I own full rights to the photo and the object illustrated. Is there something else I need to do to? Sorry if my markup is defective. I have not been able to figure out how to use the talk pages correctly. Sicroff (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Sicroff[reply]

Hold for now as we have an assertion of copyright ownership to the design. I'll work with Sicroff to get through the OTRS process as appropriate. Deryck C. 10:12, 20 October 2016 (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:Devendra Kras.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 Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph is credited to "ana kras" but there is no evidence that the uploader is ana kras. In fact, a review of the talk page of the uploader is a long string of copyright violation notices. Whpq (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2016 (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.

Album uploads by IntraUterineBassDrum

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: All files deleted by Deryck Chan Majora (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of the cover of the album Heartbeat by John Mills-Cockell.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cover art for Syrinx (band)'s Tumblers from the Vault from RVNG Intl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Syrinx (band), Long Lost Relatives Album Cover, 1971.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Cover of Syrinx release TN2.jpg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Intersystems 2015 3LP Box Set Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Invalid fair use claim. Fails WP:NFCCP #8 as the article is about the artist. Not about the album. Also fails #3a. --Majora (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2016 (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.