Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

File:Scihub raven.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: relisted on 2018 May 27. czar 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scihub raven.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Danbury City Hall.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 ⚡ 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has stated this image is their own work, but the image also in use as part of the Danbury's official web site. This image mtches the one hosted on the Danbury site. OTRS confirmation would be needed to verify that the uploader is the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do some freelance photography when I was an employee of the city, and I took this picture for their website. Does it still qualify as mine, since it is technically in their possession now and I in essence "gave" it to them? If not, this image can be deleted and I will take another to upload.--AirportExpert (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

@AirportExpert: Normally, the copyright is held by the photographer. Only you and the city would know what contract you entered into with the city and whether copyright was transferred. But because this image is published on a copyrighted website, confirmation that you are the copyright holder would need to be established. Somebody with appropriate authority at the city could send a permissions email confirming. If it's not a big deal for you to just take another photo of the City Hall, that might be the quickest way to resolve this. -- Whpq (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: That's no problem, you can delete this one. I'll just take another one the next sunny day we have.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[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:Winter von Andernach.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 ⚡ 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uncropped version of File:Johann Winter von Andernach (1505-1574).jpg is a duplicate of this file. I don't think there is a need to keep this one. Deadstar (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to other JPG file. Salavat (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (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:GolbeckMed.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 ⚡ 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is asserting they are the copyright holder of this image for Jen Golbeck. Based on the user name, this might be the subject herself. EXIF data shows the photographer and copyright holder for the image is Billy Tidwell. OTRS confirmation of copyright would be required. Whpq (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2018 (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.