Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 20

< July 19 July 21 >

July 20

File:BTCC 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: Likely acceptable as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, however it is unused. No prejudice to restoration if someone can find a legitimate, encyclopedic use for it -FASTILY 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:BTCC logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo and above c:COM:TOO China. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is There's no way that 4 V's arranged in a circle meet the TOO...certainly not in China where even File:KON_logo.svg doesn't pass TOO for copyrightability. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 20 July 2022 (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:BTC China Logo.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: Likely acceptable as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, however it is unused. No prejudice to restoration if someone can find a legitimate, encyclopedic use for it -FASTILY 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:BTC China Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CNMall41 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo and above c:COM:TOO China. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is Same rationale as above. There's no way that 4 V's arranged in a circle meet the TOO...certainly not in China where even File:KON_logo.svg doesn't pass TOO for copyrightability. If you believe otherwise, please explain why. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a logo's history is relevant and I can certainly see a valid encyclopedic use for it. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an historic logo should be in the article, then the SVG file above should be used. There is no need for a copy in PNG format. Whpq (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2022 (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:Exterior-of-the-titanic.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: Clearly invalid license. No prejudice to restoration if the uploader can confirm that they did intend to release the image into the public domain. -FASTILY 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exterior-of-the-titanic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iciclenet ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

invalid license as discussed here: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exterior of Titanic Museum in Branson, MO.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 20 July 2022 (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:Lexi Kaufman Wikipedia Free.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lexi Kaufman Wikipedia Free.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catholic Laitinen ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Found elsewhere before local upload. No permission. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: I uploaded the photo on my own social media before here. I removed myself for Wikipedia use. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Catholic Laitinen: Even assuming you are the person in the picture, the copyright typically belongs to the photographer rather than the subject or subjects. You couldn't possibly have taken this photo unless you used a timer. Furthermore, the low resolution and lack of metadata suggest this image was downloaded from the web. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: The photo is from a public event, I paid for the photo and the rights to it. I believe the agency that runs said events can use it for promotional reasons, but that doesn't alter or restrict my rights in the least. I find this "discussion" to be frivolous and unnecessary, if we're being honest, if the file is deleted it will be re-uploaded higher quality and with proof of my ownership if necessary. I have a physical copy that only I was given the password to download. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Laitinen payment does not mean you bought the photographer's copyright. It cannot be sold; it can only be transferred through a contract or written stipulation. Ownership does not equate to copyright, you must have an evidence suggesting you have a document that stipulates the photographer has transferred his copyright to you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not per the nominator's reasoning, but instead under CSD F8 (because the file is already uploaded to Commons). Then we can let the Commons community deal with its copy of the image; confirming that you have the rights to share the image can be negotiated through the VRT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (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:Lilythefear2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lilythefear2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Barney3000 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious own work per uploader's talk page --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:28, 20 July 2022 (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:Dustoff Awards 2017.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dustoff Awards 2017.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Don.H.40 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo is available on the DUSTOFF Association website in better resolution. It was uploaded there a year before it was on Wikipedia (see URL, it mentions 2020). It is not available there under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence. The author on the above-mentioned website is not credited, while on Wikipedia the authorship is attributed to Don.H.40 . In addition, there is code in the metadata typical for Facebook images (FBMD010...). All this could be used to consider this file as possibly nonfree. Pius (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer of the photo provided it to me for use on the page. We communicate through Facebook Chat, which is why it appears as a Facebook download. I have replaced it with a photo he provided me of the 2020 Awards, which does not appear to be on the Dustoff Association website. His comment to me was "edit as you see fit."Don.H.40 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently the 2020 picture IS on their website. But he did specifically send it to me. Let me see if I can get him to e-mail me the original, so I can upload it with the Metadata so you'll believe me.Don.H.40 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the photos has indeed released them under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, then we are on the right way. The only problem is that he did it on a private Facebook chat. Metadata might confirm who the author is, but there also needs to be verifiability of the licence. Ideally the photographer should use the Wikimedia VRT release generator and attach these two files. Everything is explained there step by step. They will then be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in some time. @Don.H.40: There, on Commons, is the place for files under a free licence. Locally, on English Wikipedia, one generally uploads non-free fair use files. — Pius (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will talk to him. He had a death in the family, so told me to back off. I told him I'd get back to him next week.Don.H.40 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uploader is verifying their proof that they secured permission from the photographer...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are two copyrights at issue here. The copyright for the photograph can be sorted out through VRT, but this is a photo of a 3d work and there is no freedom of panorama for 3d works. The copyright on the bust means the image is not sufficiently free. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These appear to be commissioned works, ergo, the copyright could be retained with those who commissioned the work (i.e. the original uploader). Buffs (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you believe the uploader commissioned the works? Regardless, you may have commissioned works mixed up with work for hire. The artist still retains the copyright for a commissioned work unless there is an agreement made to transfer the copyright. Whpq (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2022 (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:Shawn murray trees.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shawn murray trees.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mosesnoghbaudie ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website indicates a non-free license. [1] Image is not used in the article space. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2022 (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:Maytree band members.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maytree band members.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nightyb ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Given that this is just a screenshot from one of the videos and the purpose is (said) just to visually identify each member of the band, it should fall under WP:NFC#UULP and free use should not be allowed. Sun8908 Talk 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific section(s) of WP:NFC#UULP are the problem? Nightyb (t) 03:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first point. Sun8908 Talk 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well there's no feasible way for me to take a picture of them myself as I live in Australia and they are based in South Korea, and I have tried to contact them via Facebook Messenger (and Youtube), so where does that leave us? Nightyb (t) 02:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an existing band so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't understand. The picture can't be used because the band exists? This seems unreasonable. Nightyb (t) 03:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of. The fact that a band exists means that a free image of the band members could be taken and uploaded. It would be different if this was a band that no longer existed because a member was deceased (i.e. one COULDN'T be created). Buffs (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Could" seems very open ended... I've taken reasonable steps to obtain a suitable image, what should I do now? Nightyb (t) 04:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look for a freely licensed image that somebody else made. If you can't find one, then you are done. Wikipedia only allows non-free content if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. For an existing band, even if you cannot find a free image, and you personally cannot create one, somebody else could create a freely licensed photo and so WP:NFCC#1 is not met. Whpq (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thank you (and Buffs) for clarifying the situation. Last question: Where does WP:NFCC#1 originate? (US law?) Nightyb (t) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Wikipedia policy. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nightyb: NFCC is rooted in the concept of fair use and, yes, US/International Copyright law. Wikipedia's policies are a further restriction/elaboration on the concept of Fair Use. In order to meet the criteria for using something that is copyrighted, you need to have a rationale for it. For some, like iconic photographs, a rationale is easy (such as when it is the subject of an article). Wikipedia goes one step beyond that and requires such rationales to be spelled out. Some uses could indeed be justified for usage in an encyclopedia, like the publicity photo or a screenshot of a band, but the goal of Wikipedia is to allow such images for use anywhere, where that is possible. The more non-free images WP uses, the less portable the Encyclopedia and its contents are. I've personally had my images used and I was given credit, but no royalties because it was released for free use. Hopefully that gives a little more rationale. Buffs (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that our NFCC is far stricter than fair use; I think this band image is okay in general as fair use, but the Foundation wants to keep the use of fair-use images at a minimum, leading to WMF-imposed restrictions like the NFCC. That is, the NFCC is not mandated by specific laws or rulings, but by a WMF mission statement.
    In addition, Wikipedians in general really do not like non-free images of living persons. Non-free images of dead people are more likely to be condoned (e.g. Killing of Gabby Petito). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (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:NeeKauNis Sunset.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeeKauNis Sunset.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ravipjoshi ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website indicates a non-commercial license. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2022 (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:Lindsayczarniakbowiebaysoxgame.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lindsayczarniakbowiebaysoxgame.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miztahrogers ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website indicates "All rights reserved." Image is only used in user space. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2022 (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:Rose Ann Scamardella Screenshot - November 1981.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose Ann Scamardella Screenshot - November 1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Giacomo1968 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Living person, non-free image should not be used. Billytanghh (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_July_20