Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 14

November 14

File:Memorial to Royalton Mine Disasters.jpeg

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. I agree with the nomination. We do not have any evidence that the monument is in the public domain in the US (its country of origin), most certainly it is not, and there is no Freedom of Panorama for the monuments in the US. May be its usage as a non-free file in the article about the explosion could be justified; if someone is interested in writing a non-free usage rationaly and needs a file undeleted pls contact me or any other administrator for undeletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this newly uploaded photo while looking at Special:NewFiles. It's a photo of a memorial/monument of undetermined en:provenance being used in Royalton, Illinois and Royalton North No. 1 Mine Explosion that might has issues per c:COM:US#Artworks and sculptures. There is no "automatic" freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 3D works of art installed after January 1, 1978 under US copyright law simply because they're installed; moreover, copyright formalities for such works were no longer required after March 1, 1989. I tagged the file with {{dw-nsd}}, notified the uploader, and tried to explain the issue and see whether they more about the the memorial itself; they removed the speedy deletion template and posted that the work is within the public domain because its in a public place. After re-adding the template to the file's page, I stated that discussing things further here at FFD was an option. Since they removed the template again, I'm bringing the file's licensing up for discussion here.

The license chosen by the uploader for the photo is fine, but the photo is a WP:Derivative work and the copyright status of the photographed memorial also needs to be assessed. There's nothing unusual about this, and it is consistent with meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US and c:COM:PACUSA. I also found this article about something similar posted online. Fwiw, the memorial itself seem fairly utilitarian in design and the engraved text seems primarily simple facts (i.e. a list of names); so, perhaps a license of {{PD-text}} or {{PD-shape}} is all that's needed. It would be interesting, however, to hear what others think, though, because I don't think adding a non-free {{Non-free 3D art}} license and corresponding non-free use rationale for each of the file's uses can be justified given the way it's currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2024 (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:Astor Theatre Melbourne sign 1935.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unused image that can be easily recreated if needed. — Ирука¹³ 05:02, 14 November 2024 (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:Gamma Cephei Ab.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: keep, the file is also eligible for transfer to Commons--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible sources for this image. The upload comment claims Fandom is the source, but there is no indication that it is released under a free license (Fandom's text is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, but not images). The other source, given by the {{information}} template, is c:File:Planet Gamma Cephei Ab and Star B.png, but that image is more cropped than the local one. Delete as a likely copyright violation. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or move to Commons?) and indicate that it was cropped from this earlier version of c:File:Planet Gamma Cephei Ab and Star B.png, which is much larger and would allow for the creation of this image. Recon rabbit 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, image was created with Celestia, which has copyright-free images. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not necessarily true as the image uses a user-created planet texture, but indeed the original version was released under a free license by its author. (So keep.) SevenSpheres (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2024 (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:Italian Cruisers underway.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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no way to know the publication date of the photograph, it should not be considered PD-US. — Ирука¹³ 08:57, 14 November 2024 (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:Sparviero.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is from "Storia militare" magazine, probably from 1994. It is unknown whether the image was published before. — Ирука¹³ 09:39, 14 November 2024 (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:Bleedinglovemusicvideo.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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination ended in "kept" because the consensus believe that the crystal gown (or "crystal-encrusted dress") couldn't have been understood without this screenshot and possibly the critical commentary previously supported the image (oldid). However, the sources supporting the prose turned out to be unreliable, especially one now "deprecated". Now that the song article no longer contains the contested info (oldid), perhaps the current critical commentary is no longer adequate to support the nominated screenshot, which is no longer proven contextually significant to the topic (or subject of discussion) in question. I even tried to find reliable sources covering what's depicted in the image without avail. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dress is not mentioned in the article and lacks sourced critical commentary. It fails to meet the contextual significance criterion. ✗plicit 14:47, 21 November 2024 (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.