Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

January 13

File:Analysis NotchFilter 1591hz.png

Screenshot seems to be of an old version of NI Multisim, which is not free software. Only used on talk page. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeerlaoDark.JPG

Labels seem to be above the threshold of originality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansett route map.jpg

Appears to be a scan of a pamphlet cover. Permission from publisher is needed unless it can be shown that it is in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian copyright law had a 50 year term (pma or from publication in the case of anonymous works) at the URAA restoration date in 1996. So the route map would have to have been published anonymously before 1946 to escape restoration. Felix QW (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:HopperAutomat.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:Automat-edward-hopper-1927.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 02:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to Commons file. Felix QW (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deng BaoShan 1968.jpg

This file is missing a US licensing template, and the only possibility I could imagine for this to be PD in the US is for the image to have been published before 1946, which would make it PD in China at the URAA restoration date. The subject would have been 52 in 1946 and died in 1968. Felix QW (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keenan Anderson portrait.jpg

A 1,280 × 1,600 pixels image is not fair use. Criteria 3b of the NFCC says this should be low resolution. Secondly, there's the assumption that "no opportunity to get a photo exists" - but there is still a decent chance that a free image does exist, but hasn't been located (or uploaded) yet. I'm unsure if anyone has contacted the deceased's estate to try and get a free image? There's also the issue that "No viable commercial opportunity seems likely.", despite the fact that images of this person are currently in high demand due to ongoing news coverage. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded this. I uploaded three similar images actually, and this is a new thing that I've done, so I make no claim of expertise. I used similar justifications for all three, so now would be a good time to learn if I'm doing something wrong. The others are [[1]] and [[2]]. In my experience of upload photos, I think 100% of the time User:DatBot comes along and resizes it and uploads a lower resolution one, so I did not pause to consider the resolution .

Regarding is a free images currently exists, I searched Google using the filter for licenses and Commons, which seems like a the appropriate way to determine if an image exists. I found none.

Reaching out to the estate of a man who was recently killed in such extreme circumstances to ask for a photo like a very high bar to set me, and I would not be so bold as to contact a grieving family, that idea that volunteer editors might each individually feel a responsibility to ask seems unlikely, can any of us really imagine that dozens of editors might all ask the same question of the recently bereaved? I consider this a strange indicator of the photo's suitability. The photo I shared is all over the internet already, and on Instagram, so I cannot see that I am reducing any commercial opportunity, I find it unlikely that his family will turn this into a money making moment and if they did so, I consider it even more unlikely that an image widely shared on news and social media would (a) have commercial value and (b) that value would be reduced by being used here.

But everything I have said is based on my basic understanding of things, I am no expert here, this is my first time at files for discussion, so if I'm transgressing, please point me in the right direction, I have no desire to create problems. CT55555(talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the bots are doing their things (diff) and the file will inevitably be reduced in the very short term future. I suggest anyone worried about the file size pause for 24 hours at which point I think it will be replaced automatically by the bots. CT55555(talk) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further update, bots have reduced to 282 × 353 pixels. Bots will delete original image on 21st Jan. CT55555(talk) 00:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:leatherface.png

I uploaded this file by accident when I was not finished naming it. I uploaded better version of file with a more appropriate name Paleface Jack (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7, as the author has requested deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Ummah Dawn is Looming, the anthem of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.mp3

I don't buy the notion that all anthems of unofficial countries are in the public domain by virtue of the country lacking recognition; a creative song dedicated as an anthem of the Principality of Sealand first published in the United Kingdom would be copyrighted despite the fact that Sealand lacks recognition. For that reason, we need to consider if this is actually copyrighted in the United States (or we need to find a free license from ISIS... which we're not going to find).

To determine U.S. copyright status is a bit complicated. Syria is a party to the Berne Convention, but c:COM:Iraq is not. If this sound recording was first published in Iraq and not republished in Syria (or any other Berne country) within 30 days, then it would be PD in the USA as the USA does not recognize Iraqi copyrights. Otherwise, it would probably be copyrighted under U.S. law. due to it being copyrighted in Syria (even though ISIS is never going to be able to legally enforce it because... well... ISIS is illegal).

I'm bringing this here for discussion, because I'm not sure what we should do here. There's absolutely no way that ISIS will be able to enforce its copyright in the United States so long as it remains a terrorist group that lacks recognition as a sovereign state, but it (or some chap who made the song) might well still own the copyright under U.S. law if this was published in Syria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, only saw this because a file I uploaded is up for discussion above, so very much on a learning curve, so forgive me if this is a silly question. Do you think that maybe should be deleted because you think the Islamic State might litigate against Wikipedia? Is that the risk that we need to try to avoid? CT55555(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact there's no active risk that ISIS will be able to litigate against Wikipedia successfully (I think I stated this quite clearly when I said [t]here's absolutely no way that ISIS will be able to enforce its copyright in the United States so long as it remains a terrorist group that lacks recognition as a sovereign state). But WP:NFCC doesn't appear to care, which is why this is here for discussion and why I didn't come out swinging for deletion off the bat. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for misunderstanding. So we should be discussing how to apply a policy that doesn't work well for this unusual scenario? I think I've understood now. And I'm very new to this part of wikipedia and I'll maybe just watch how this plays out. CT55555(talk) 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Marie Presley Storm & Grace Deluxe.jpg

Virtually identical to the standard cover, fails fair use in WP:NFCC, as the differences can be easily communicated in text. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]