Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 9

< November 8	November 10 >

November 9

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.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: Convert to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US patent is from 1999; the license directly states all patents must be published before 3-1-1989 Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magog. Patent drawings are generally in the public domain. I believe that the license template used for this and other patent images you have cited has been incorrectly modified since the time that the images were originally posted. There is no time restriction on whether patent drawings are copyrighted. I am awaiting a response from David Condrey regarding his claim that patents published after 1 March 1989 are "most likely copyrighted". I will subsequently correct the license template unless someone can substantiate the claim. —Catsquisher (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related discussions on patent licensing at c:Template talk:PD-US-patent-no notice and the linked discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change licensing patents filed after March 1, 1989 are copyrighted. That patent diagram was published in 1999. Since it is copyrighted, the license isn't public domain. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 05:49, 10 November 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:Digimon Hurricane Landing cut scene.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: relisted on 2018 November 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Digimon Hurricane Landing cut scene.jpg (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:Krodh movie.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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obviously a non-free file, uploaded by a sock. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A non-free license was added by Salavat, but the file is not being used in any articles (which means it can be deleted per WP:F5) and it's not been provided with a non-free use rationale (which means it can be deleted per WP:F6). The file was being used in User:Bmmbm.123/sandbox, but I removed it because it can't be used in the user space per WP:NFCC#9. I have no idea whether Bmmbm.123 is another sock, but the fact that file was uploaded by a sock doesn't automatically mean that it should be deleted if another editor can find a WP:NFCC compliant use for the file; otherwise, it will be gone in a few days per F5 or F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non free criteria now void as the article has already been deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 00:20, 10 November 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:Green Lantern Rebirth 1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded. There is already non-free media on this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's currently used in two pages, for the record.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one Non free cover is enough for this page. There is no additional value added by this image that the other image already doesn't add. --DBig Xrayᗙ 00:19, 10 November 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:2019 NCAA Women's Final Four logo.svg

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: Procedural close as NFC policy changes are out of scope for FfD; in fact, there's little we can do about it here. If you feel NFCC should be amended, please initiate a formal WP:RFC -FASTILY 07:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVG should not be used for nonfree files.

I'd like to address the replacement of this image File:2019 wbb-final-4-032218.png

with this image: File:2019 NCAA Women's Final Four logo.svg

I like to discuss this specifically for this image and for the general concept of using SVG files for nonfree use.

I suspect this issue has come up and I'm sure there is some discussion of it, but I'll confess and pay more attention because it affects me personally this time.

If I may provide a brief bit of background regarding this and similar images.

Years ago, I began working on women's basketball related articles including the and of season tournament articles.

Initially, many of these articles were missing the logo for the final four. I tracked down some but had some difficulty finding the logos for many of the earlier tournaments. I happen to have a decent, albeit modest, relationship with the NCAA, and I wrote to them to see if I could arrange to get copies of the early tournament logos. While this was several years ago, and I don't recall exactly what I said, is likely that I explained that we understood the copyright status and would respect that through the use of a limited resolution image.

File:1986WomensFinalFourLogo.jpg

In more recent years, there is a formal unveiling of the logo, and I have use reduced resolution versions for the more recent tournaments.

I did that in the case of the upcoming 2019 tournament. However The reduced resolution PNG image has now been replaced by an SVG version.

I don't question the fact that an SVG version is superior to a.PNG version. In the case of a free image, I think it makes perfect sense to use an SVG version rather than that PNG or.jpg. As is well known, one of the superior aspects of an SVG file is scalability — it remains a high quality image when the resolution is increased. However, I believe this very attribute is a negative rather than a positive when it comes to nonfree files. One of the key aspects of the fair use policy is that the image will be portrayed in a resolution sufficient to identify it, but low enough that blowing it up will result in an inferior image not likely to be useful for high-quality printing. versions could be used, for example, in merchandise sales of hats T-shirts and other memorabilia, a material contribution to the NCAA income.

I think it should be our general policy not to use SVG files under fair use considerations. I'll stop short of proposing this as a policy, because perhaps there are some cases that need further review, but in this specific case, I think the SVG version fails both:

NFCC#2
NFCC#3

--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: When I requested access to NCAA's logo library, I did not say anything about the resolution I'd use the images at (unlike in your case). Here's the full explanation I gave for my request:

Please describe how you will use NCAA logos? To represent the NCAA in Wikipedia articles. The logos will be primarily used at the top of articles about the NCAA, NCAA tournaments, NCAA seasons, etc. The logos will not be used in a way that implies any endorsement by the NCAA.

My request was approved (by a seemingly-manual process) and I was given full access to their library. I mention this to make the point that it is unlikely we are harming or even upsetting the copyright holder. Additionally, I find it unlikely that a nominative use of a logo in an encyclopedia would be found by a judge to violate fair use.

The only thing I think we really have to debate here is whether or not this use violates Wikipedia's much-stricter self-imposed NFC rules. The precedent on Wikipedia overwhelmingly seems to be that SVG non-free logos are okay, as there are thousands of them currently in use (ballpark math: 31 of the 200 images on the first page of Category:All non-free logos are SVGs; (31/200)*151787 = ~23,500 non-free SVG logos). There have also been previous discussions where non-free SVGs were assumed/implied to be acceptable, as long as their nominal size is reduced; e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 4. Thus, I don't think there is any reason to delete this file, unless we are going to turn this into a much larger discussion about whether to keep all those other logos as well. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IagoQnsi, I am interested in the larger discussion. Subject to the possibility that there may be some exceptions I haven't considered, it is my opinion that the use of SVGs largely emasculates the entire point of the fair use exception to copyright.

Can you tell me whether the NCAA logo library contains SVGs? If that's the case, it will be a mitigating factor, because presumably they understand the disadvantage of using that format, and if they chose to use it (as opposed to us converting to an SVG), then my concerns aren't as significant. I still wonder if have a full appreciation of the issue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:30, 10 November 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.