Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 3

September 3

File:Nickelodeon UK logo 2010.svg

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: Relicense and move to Commons. Whpq (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file is marked as "don't move to Commons", however given that "Nickelodeon" is a US-based multinational TV channel, not the UK channel, and in it's native country (U.S.) this logo appears below threshold of originality (just simple wordmark), this file should be removed at Wikipedia and place it at Commons instead 36.77.81.243 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2023 (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:FrenchingTheBullyReissueFront.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar to normal cover and not discussed critically or used for educational purposes, so fails WP:NFCC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not discussed critically, and two non-free images for a stub article is overkill anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2023 (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:IE7 Firefox.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: relisted on 2023 September 11. Whpq (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:IE7 Firefox.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Beatrice-Straight (1).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. Whpq (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication why the 1976 film "Network" should be in the public domain, although I have not seen it to verify whether a copyright notice appears in it. There is also a non-free use rationale for Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, but I am unsure about including a non-free image in a list article such as this one. Felix QW (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felix,

Did I not describe it well enough? I'm quite new to licensing/images, and its murky territory, so please, teach me. I feel overwhelmed trying to comprehend what's what. From what I did read and gather, the period of public domain/free domain, whatever, was between 1928 - 1977, so Network just barely made it. On the other hand, Network is NOT a film that's in the public domain. I just thought that it seemed to imply images are?

Well, beyond that, I had a very difficult time searching for images which seemed to be acceptable to use for the page on the sidebar. She's a highly notable nominee, being the shortest performance ever to win. But I cannot use her main article picture, due to some technicality. So based on what I provided in the one box, the stipulations of "showing clips or excerpts", this seemed to permit me to use it as it is from a clip of the film. It is only used in this article, and it used simply to highlight the actress's achievement and Oscar superlative record, which has never been surmounted since.

Furthermore, my final defense of this usage would be that several notches above it is this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Van_Fleet_in_East_of_Eden_trailer_2.jpg which is a screenshot from a movie trailer on YouTube, and practically the same approach I suppose? Not identical, of course. But when I setup the Summary and Licensing, I basically followed that structure, only modifying it as best as I could, trying to input as much information as I can, utilizing that source I found https://libguides.lincolnu.edu/c.php?g=992738&p=7182884#:~:text=Showing%20Clips%20or%20Excerpts,doctrine%20of%20U.S.%20copyright%20law. --to prove that it was fair use, in low resolution, which apparently wasn't low enough and I waited for the bot to minimize it; and that's about it.

Otherwise, beyond that, I'm out of my depth. So if I have explained it well enough and the image CAN still be used but I need to modify the license or tweak something, help me source it, etc., that's great. But if it's NOT, could you possibly help me figure out how and where I can find some picture of this woman to use? And how come Jo Van Fleet can have a screenshot image, but Beatrice Straight cannot?! Thanks in advance. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinemaniac! Thank you for all your questions. Unfortunately, if the film is copyrighted, then images taken from the film are also copyrighted, so this does not work.

I added a truly public domain photo to Straight's own article, which is taken from a film whose copyright has lapsed (Patterns, 1956), so you can always use that.

So you can always use that one. I do see the point of including a screenshot from the performance that earned her the Academy Award, but unfortunately I am not an expert on non-free use here myself. Felix QW (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns is another underrated, excellent film. And honestly, that works just fine. So thank you! That is much appreciated and I think that will suffice. As long as it's an image of her, it works for me. Even as suitable as the Network screenshot might have been, an image is an image, especially if it ain't gonna be contested. Thanks again! --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad this works for you! I just realised that I hadn't cleared up the mystery yet why the image of Jo van Fleet is alright and yours wasn't. That is because that image is taken from the Eden trailer, which indeed does not have a copyright notice. Had it been taken from the film itself, it would also still have been under copyright. Felix QW (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't realize you had replied again! But I see. So the trailer differs from a clip. But a clip does NOT differ from a whole film, because it is a full portion of the film, is that basically the gist of it? My one way around it would be if I find the right trailer that might have her ever so briefly and then go upload it on Wikimedia. But eh, that's not a rush, because like I said, your solution at least kept her in place, so to speak, haha. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's exactly it. The clip is taken from the copyrighted film, so this particular clip has never been published by the copyright holder without a copyright notice. The trailer has been circulated independently, with the consent of the copyright holder and without a copyright notice, and that makes it out of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2023 (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:YouTube homepage.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: As stated below, an equivalent free version has been created, so we should use that instead. @The Quirky Kitty & @Matr1x-101, please substitute in the replacement at your earliest convenience. -FASTILY 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This screenshot contains copyrighted thumbnails which are themselves not the subject of critical commentary. Therefore it fails WP:NFCC no. 8. The previous two deletion discussions were not closed as keep, but as WP:TRAINWRECK due to the fact they nomination like 4 files at once. I suggest that the thumbnails (as well as the thumbnails for the shorts at the bottom) be blacked out to comply with WP:NFCC. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 19:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the thumbnails should be blurred/removed to comply. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the thumbnails, as the content is an integral part of the website. If you blurred the thumbnails, the screenshot would be reduced to primarily an arrangement of text, making it look oddly empty, thus viewers would have trouble understanding the image and page. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quirky Kitty: That does not excuse the fact that these thumbnails are themselves not the subject of critical commentary, and therefore this image fails WP:NFCC. As much as it would take away from the image, the thumbnails must be blurred beyond recognition to comply with WP:NFCC (particularly no. 3 and 8). —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 13:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe thumbnails meet NFCC 3 and 8, as including an unadulterated screenshot of YouTube would indeed "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." A single screenshot is also the minimum needed to convey what YouTube looks like. Blurring thumbnails is a bit excessive and we should m:Avoid copyright paranoia. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quirky Kitty: Thinking about it, we could do something like File:Flickr screenshot.png and show the page for a YouTube video licenced under cc-by. This would eliminate anything about the copyrighted thumbnails and therefore satisfy WP:NFCC no. 3. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 17:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good compromise. You'd need to blur the suggestions according to your interpretation of NFCC, but it would be unobtrusive. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried making this demo screenshot and would like opinions on if it is a good candidate to replace this image. FYI, the source link is here. I did this in private browsing so none of the suggestions are biased. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 17:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matr1x-101 Yes, this is going in the right direction. How about this: [1]? I used light mode, which is the default, used a Gaussian blur (smoother and more subtle than pixellation), and did not blue the videos I could determine were under a free license. I did blur the channel thumbnail which I presume is under copyright. This could be uploaded with text attributing all the video used. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that is a great screenshot (thanks for the better blur) but we should probably wait for some consensus. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an illustration for our article about the website "YouTube", illustrated by a screenshot of the corresponding website (www.youtube.com). It seems to me like a screenshot of www.youtube.com is a capital way to illustrate an article about www.youtube.com, as many of our articles are about things which are copyrighted. jp×g 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: not to be rude or anything, but did you read my point? There are copyrighted thumbnails in this images which probably don't meet NFCC. Besides, please see the thread above, there is an alternate way of making the screenshot so it still shows youtube be it doesn't violate NFCC. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a quite idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NFCC. Per YouTube's terms of service:

Uploading Content

If you have a YouTube channel, you may be able to upload Content to the Service. You may use your Content to promote your business or artistic enterprise. If you choose to upload Content, you must not submit to the Service any Content that does not comply with this Agreement (including the YouTube Community Guidelines) or the law. For example, the Content you submit must not include third-party intellectual property (such as copyrighted material) unless you have permission from that party or are otherwise legally entitled to do so. You are legally responsible for the Content you submit to the Service. We may use automated systems that analyze your Content to help detect infringement and abuse, such as spam, malware, and illegal content.

Rights you Grant

You retain ownership rights in your Content. However, we do require you to grant certain rights to YouTube and other users of the Service, as described below.

License to YouTube

By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service.

License to Other Users

You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content, including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display, and perform it, only as enabled by a feature of the Service (such as video playback or embeds). For clarity, this license does not grant any rights or permissions for a user to make use of your Content independent of the Service.

Duration of License

The licenses granted by you continue for a commercially reasonable period of time after you remove or delete your Content from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted.

It seems to me that this document is extremely clear on the matter that YouTube possesses intellectual property rights to the content of videos uploaded by users, including thumbnails. I do not understand on what legal or policy basis for the claim that each individual video in the screenshot must be itself the specific subject of commentary in the article. There are dozens of paragraphs in the article that relate to YouTube's content presentation algorithms; what type of videos the website shows users is obviously related to this subject. jp×g 19:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: you have misunderstood the T&Cs. YouTube does not own the IP, you merely grant them a licence to use your video. The copyright is still with the original creator. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 13:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We make use of non-free content such as magazine covers, and album covers which often include other elements that have their own copyright. Display of the look of the homepage with all of the thumbnails missing would be a misrepresentation of what the page looks like. Creators are allowed to release their videos under a CC license so in theory, a free image could be created if you could somehow manipulate the Youtube recommendations to show only freely licensed videos but that is unreasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: did you read the discussion above? A free alternative has been created already — [2]. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:35, 11 September 2023 (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:Unfriended 2015 teaser poster.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternative poster that consists only of text and simple shapes. I feel that is likely below the threshold of originality. Thoughts? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (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:London Necropolis bombing.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: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file. -FASTILY 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as public domain under the assumption that it is under Crown Copyright. However, this is not the case since Southern Railway was a private enterprise until nationalisation in 1948. Therefore, the photo will have been under UK copyright at the URAA restoration date and US copyright would have been renewed by the URAA. There could well be a case for non-free use at one of the articles in which it is currently in use, but possibly not in all three of them (London Necropolis Company, London Necropolis Railway and London Necropolis railway station) Felix QW (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the assets of the Southern Railway passed to the BTC in 1949, would the copyright of an image taken by the SR Photographic Unit have passed to it? Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may well have, but to my knowledge this does not mean that they are now retroactively under Crown copyright, but merely that BTC is now holder of the ordinary copyright, much like the US Government can effectively acquire copyright from elsewhere despite government work itself not being copyrighted. Felix QW (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this arcane issue has come up before (you should ask at the railway project). I think the answer was that they are ok to use. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's this previous discussion, where iridescent argued that Southern Railways was under state management via the Railway Executive Committee when the photo was taken, and therefore crown copyright applies. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you very much for pointing that out! I am still rather sceptical of the claim that Southern Railway would be a Crown Body during this time, since while they were controlled by the government, they were still under their previous ownership rather than in the ownership of the Crown. Felix QW (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know enough about how crown copyright works to be sure either way, but I note that the file was deleted on commons with the rationale "still unclear copyright situation" so they clearly weren't convinced by Iri's argument. (Although before the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Crown Copyright applied more liberally than it does today, to (according to Crown copyright#United Kingdom) "any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of [the king] or any government department", so it's possible that even photographs taken by a privately owned company would have been under crown copyright if it was at the instruction of the government?) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it meets WP:NFCI#8 anyway as an iconic historic image, it's pretty much the only image available of the interior of the station itself. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that it would meet that standard for London Necropolis railway station. My main concern was with the other two articles it is currently used in. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this would be a little strange, but does anyone know how to contact the public relations folks at BTC (or whoever might hold the copyright, assuming any is in force)? A note from the copyright holder officially saying something like "If there's a copyright still in force, then we release this work under _____ license" could solve the problem completely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Archives, I believe the copyright is now administered by the Picture Librarian of the Science Museum, picture.library@sciencemuseum.ac.uk. Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now sent an email; I will keep you informed should I get any response. Felix QW (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2023 (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:New Scottsville train station 1911.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: keep. Whpq (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about when the photo was published. — Ирука¹³ 23:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was any attempt made to find a publication date? If not, this would seem to be a rather negligent nomination. jp×g 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a routine check; I didn’t go to the Wheatland photo archive. — Ирука¹³ 10:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point in nominating images that are over a hundred years old on the grounds that they might have been published more than seventeen years after they were taken. I mean, it's possible, but per 17 USC 101, "publication" means:

the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.[1]

To perform or display a work "publicly" means –

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

It is indeed physically possible for this to be an edge-case scenario in which the photograph was taken, hidden in a box for twenty years, and only afterwards distributed to other persons, but this seems unrealistic. There are many other photographs on Wikipedia, for example those which I have taken with a camera, where it would have been physically possible for me to have instead approached another photographer, incapacitated them, and taken the SD card from their camera. I think there is a point at which the functioning of a project requires us to assume good faith on the part of image creators and uploaders, and not interpret maximally worst-case scenarios under which there is some chance a thing might violate our policies. jp×g 21:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per JPxG, it is unreasonable to blindly assume the worst case scenario. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:37, 11 September 2023 (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.