Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bayes theorem assassin.svg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bayes theorem assassin.svg

Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons.

unnecessary use of licensed property 2600:8807:8080:D40:3864:504B:4E97:28B 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Also in use on 6 projects. However, might perhaps be replaced by File:Bayes theorem visualisation.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Achim55: The concept of suspicion of guilt is a far better example of Bayes theorem. Note that the contributions of the nominator, which exclusively pertain to the deletion of this file raises suspicion on their motivation and impartiality. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Before nominating for deletion (again!), please note that the community has decided to keep the current image – see en:Talk:Bayes'_theorem#RfC_on_illustration. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Appears to be an attempt to circumvent a community consensus. The fair acceptable use of this item has been discussed. It has been found to be in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Constant314 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Constant314: This is Commons, not Wikipedia, and there is no COM:FAIRUSE on Commons. Would you like to change your argument, or your vote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  No. Fair use was probably not the correct term. The owners of the intellectual property explicitly give permission for non-commercial use. Constant314 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Constant314, see COM:LICENSING. Commons requires permission for commercial use. So what do you say now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• On the face of it, those licensing terms look incompatible with Commons, unless I'm missing something. But please pardon my ignorance: How are Innersloth's policies relevant to this case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: If you think that the file violates a policy, then you should make your case directly. I will stick with my vote for now. Constant314 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a reason to have an opinion about whether the file violates policy, but I thought I did you a service by engaging in a dialogue with you about the reasons you were offering for why it was OK. Don't you agree that you know more about Commons policies now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I do. Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Innersloth does not own astronauts. I fail to see how this is a copyright issue. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if @Constant314's meaning of the term "fair use" here is the everyday one ("use that is justified within guidelines") as opposed to the legal one. I'll let them respond. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep User:Edward hahm (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2023 (PST)

 Delete I don't see we have a choice on this, regardless of how amusing it might be or whatever happened on EN. Commons does not allow fair use, or images that are restricted to non-commercial use. Pretty cut-and-dried. --Ipatrol (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not claiming fair use, but instead that Innersloth has no claim over imagery of a generic astronaut. If you look carefully, the shape of the figure is also different from Among Us's. (Additionally, the concept of Among Us has prior art: en:The Thing (1982 movie). cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Info I'm not voting as I'm not a regular editor, but it seems to me some users arguing that it should be removed or must be removed are operating under a mistaken concept. This image is under an acceptable license (CCBY-SA) per COM:LICENSING - the only issue would be if this was a depiction of a trademark that would attract copyright protections.

The image has been licensed by its creator (w:user:cmglee) - and the depiction of a small astronaut figure would, seem to me, to not meet the level of a trademark that might afford protection - indeed wikimedia has other works that depict trademarks that cover the exact same case, such as File:Stencil_de_among_us_por_"Raptor"_(2021).jpg or depictions of Mickey Mouse/the Mickey Mouse head such as Mickey_Mouse_head_and_ears 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 23:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Trademarks are considered COM:Non-copyright restrictions; Commons doesn't delete files on the basis of trademark claims, only on claims of copyright. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe this would be closer to COM:Fan-art, technically. 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I've noticed that some are referring to a discussion on EnWiki as having attained "consensus" or "community consensus" to keep this file due to a discussion on EnWiki. This is Commons, not EnWiki. Discussions on other wikis do not bind Commons in any way regarding whether a file is suitably licensed for hosting here or whether or not the file infringes on any copyrights. Moreover, while EnWiki might accept files hosted under claims of fair use, Commons does not (and is prohibited by the WMF board from doing so).
  The relevant question here is whether or not the drawing that clearly depicts an Among Us crewmate is either (1) not a derivative work of the Crewmate art owned by Innersloth or (2) is too simple to warrant copyright protection. I'd have to give these some thought, but this doesn't seem clear-cut. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to this comment and also 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 above: Where the work of fiction makes use of commonplace pre-existing elements, taking one of those elements and imaginatively recreating it as an original work of fan art does not infringe any copyright, even if the recreation would clearly be understood to relate to the fictional universe created by the original author. (emphasis mine) from commons:Fan_art#There_is_no_copyright_in_a_commonplace_pre-existing_element may apply. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 19:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, but the image takes multiple pre-existing elements, not just one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Can you please elaborate? As far as I can tell, only the astronaut figure is contentious. The dagger is totally generic, and Among Us does not have characters with bushy eyebrows. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: no reason for deletion, no copyright issue. --Wdwd (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)