Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

File:Cleveland Tremont.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: delete. Whpq (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:INVENTED logo for the neighborhood, created by taking an image from a website and chopping it in half. It's not used in this manner anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Delete as unencyclopedic. - Eureka Lott 00:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the nominator is correct in saying that this is unencyclopedic. I don't think there's any copyright issues with it, but it does seem to be a trademark/logo created for a development company attracting tourism rather than being a logo for the neighborhood itself. ALH (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2023 (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:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.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: close as resolved after source, authenticity and copyright status have been ascertained. Speedy delete local file as redundant to Commons file after higher quality original image was found. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this summary as it is a) an involved close (not annotated) and b) the fact is that the image was kept but a new, higher resolution version became available since the initial upload. The summary should be much closer to "Keep image was indeed PD. Since nomination, a higher resolution, PD image has been uploaded to the commons and superceded this image/Speedy Deleted". Buffs (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the summary (even though we normally shouldn't edit closed discussions). Ixfd64 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't seem to have a problem before.... I'm done here. Buffs (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image from Dragon Lady Today is purported to be the selfie taken by the pilot of a U-2 that flew over the Chinese spy balloon. However, the background is said to be the San Joaquin Valley — which is nowhere near the balloon's flight path. In other words, this photo may be fake and therefore out of scope. See talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident#U-2 Selfie for more details. Furthermore, the copyright status is unclear because there is no information about the actual source. Someone on Twitter asked the webmaster to ask about the image's provenance, to which no response has been given. And even assuming this image is real, the pilot likely took it for fun and not as part of their official duties. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence it’s from said Valley, just an anonymous claim on a Wikipedia talk page; (edit: add) as mentioned below, it's got a positive geolocation in Missouri. As for the source, by definition, it is a serviceman literally taking a picture of his job while on duty and clearly meets the criteria as a PD image. Whether or not it was “for fun” is irrelevant per US code; no known exception is made. The pilot cannot claim both flight hours and that he "wasn't on duty" when taking the photo. Buffs (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some doubt (such as the possibility of a photographer not in the US Department of Defense), I could understand, but the U-2 is a single seat aircraft (except the trainer...and even then, both instructor and pilot are on duty and they do not give rides to photographers nor allow cameras to be placed there by others). Futhermore, even classified photos and documents are in the public domain when it comes to copyright law (a weird oddity)...they simply aren't available to anyone without a clearance, but they are not copyrighted... copyright stuff is weird... Buffs (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article from MSN suggests at least one of the aircraft might have been the two-seat TU-2S. However, this shouldn't make a difference because I don't think they'd allow non-military personnel to ride along on a spy plane. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen U.S. military images deleted on Commons because they might have been taken by personnel in their leisure time. I wonder if we should revisit some of those cases. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. "In the performance of their duties" is part of the general criteria, though it's certainly a gray area as to when those are duties. If someone dies enroute to their home from the base, it's usually determined to be "in the line of duty" for purposes of death benefits. Driving around town? Same. Drunk and throwing haymakers...not so much, usually. When that would apply to copyright? I have no idea. If we are sticking with when we KNOW they were on duty, then this is a clear, bright line. Buffs (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Buffs (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who originally reverted the edit, but I've now seen positive geolocation in Missouri and I no longer believe the image is fake. See: [1]https://mastodon.social/@benelsen/109905788086458571 FrontsInFront (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the geolocation data does seem valid. I'm also now convinced that the photo might not be fake. However, there are still a lot of people who are calling its authenticity into question. [2] It's been pointed out that the photo is very small and is not on DVIDS or available from any official U.S. military sources. This brings me to my second concern: I've seen comments on Reddit and elsewhere saying that the image seems to be a photo of a computer screen and not the original. [3] [4] Would {{PD-Art}} apply in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PD Art would not apply unless something was done creative with the image. A screenshot/crop of a PD image does not attain or lose copyright status based on a faithful reproduction (even of a lower quality than the original). Now on DVIDS Buffs (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per FrontsInFront. I've kept the image as the old one until this discussion and the other one over here conclude. Poodle23 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the DVIDS information on the image: https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7644960/u-2-pilot-over-central-continental-united-states RickyCourtney (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrote the problimatic version of the image (which looked like it was shot off a screen) from Dragon Lady Today with the actual image from DVIDS. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Somehow my search for "U-2" didn't turn up any relevant results. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close (if that's an option) as the image is now known to be freely licensed and is properly attributed. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I've replaced both usages of the image with the one on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description could use some work. We should close this discussion and allow the speedy delete process to work itself out. Buffs (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2023 (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:Judy Hopps's Profile.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. Whpq (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be fair use, nor copyright free Cerebral726 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless that character gets an article devoted to her at some point, I doubt there will be any fair use situation for it and leaving it is a copyright violation. ALH (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2023 (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.