Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20 edit

Henry Kulka images edit

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 2021 October 10. FASTILY 09:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parker store.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Maple furniture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Friedlander House, Masons avenue, Herne Bay, Auckland. View of lounge taken from elevated dining niche. Designed by Henry Kulka in 1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Roberta Ave House, 1962.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Innes Schweppes - Coca Cola Building designed and realised by Henry Kulka on the Corner of Victoria Street, Hamilton, New Zealand in 1955.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Photographer Cedric Firth for architect Henry Kulka, 1955. Staircase study..jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Fisher and Paykel (F&P) head offices and factory. Designed by architect Henry Kulka. Mt Wellington, Auckland, New Zealand, 1955.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Fletcher Building Head Office in Penrose, Auckland, New Zealand. Designed by Henry Kulka. Interior view of curved staircase inside the entrance. 1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Front south facing façade and front entry of wooden Bungalow for Dr E. Meyer, Springcombe Avenue, St Heliers Bay, Auckland. Designed and realised in 1962..jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Villa Kantor Raumplan in Jablonec Nad Nisou. View of south facing garden façade. Villa realised autonomously by Henry Kulka in 1934.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Original interior photograph of the Villa Kantor Raumplan designed and realised by Henry Kulka for Dr Kantor in Jablonec Nad Nisou , Czechoslovakia, in 1934.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Villa Semler, galleried Raumplan apartment, realised in 1933-4 for Oskar Semler at Klatovska St, Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. View from lower hall into main lower lounge and fireplace in fire niche with lowered ceiling.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Villa Khuner. Double level gallery view down to fireplace and dining niche. Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Villa Khuner, Eastern façade, Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg (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:Alekanfalls.jpg edit

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own-work claim. A slightly larger (320x210), slightly less cropped version can be found in the Photo Gallery tab on this page. ✗plicit 06:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Explicit. The website where Explicit found the photo being used has only one archived version from back in 2017 (at least that's the only one I could find), but the same image can be seen here being used as early as 2004 (with a watermark nonetheless) which predates the file's upload to Wikipedia by three years. So, at the very least, I think WP:VRT verification would be needed for this; the uploader, however, hasn't edit Wikipedia since November 2020 for whatever reason so it seems unlikely that a WP:CONSENT email would be sent in within the seven days this discussion is required to run. If the uploader does send in such an email, the file can always be restored via WP:REFUND once VRT has verified copyright authorship. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The photo appears to be purposefully cropped right before the watermark in the 2004 image Marchjuly uncovered. Unlikely to be own-work. Presumably someone else could take a photo of Alekan Falls, or if the user was the actual owner they could be re-uploaded to Commons in higher quality. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2021 (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:All angels church front.jpg edit

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 ⚡ 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same image with bigger resolution is found here Sreejith K (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious own work claim. No chance of feedback, as the Wikipedian seems to be deceased. Replaced the infobox image in All Angels' Church with likely WP:FREER commons image. Nominated image is now unused. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2021 (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:Ludong.jpg edit

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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the earliest archive with the picture (https://web.archive.org/web/20071120103522/http://www.bar.gov.ph:80/barchronicle/2007/may_1-31_news7.asp) is copyrighted, and later archives between 2010 show copyright. Orphaned copyvio, should be deleted. Sennecaster (What now?) 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website says content is copyright Bureau of Agricultural Research, a branch of the Philippine government. It is thus effectively public domain, as as explained in Copyright rules by territory/Philippines. The image was orphaned by JJMC89 bot two months ago due to a missing template parameter. I have reverted that change, so it is no longer orphaned. I have also updated the image template to recommend moving the image to Wikimedia Commons. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Philippine government is highly inconsistent with how it marks its copyright. For example, PNA is a government branch or agency, but claims full copyright and we must respect that. For PD-PhilippinesGov to apply, the website in question must state that it is in the public domain. It will not stand on Commons. The source claims that it was copyrighted at the time of uploading, with ARR. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: You say it won't stand, yet there are thousands of PD-PhilippinesGov images on Commons. Many of those images fall in the same situation as this image. There is precedent in fact to prefer government public domain law over government copyright notices. For instance: The Smithsonian had a blanket copyright notice on their website, and yet Commons decided that works created by Smithsonian employees are still public domain. That being said, every country's copyright laws are admittedly their own unique snowflake. So if there is some discussion where it was decided as a matter of policy for the Philippines that the website in question must state that it is in the public domain, that could help your position. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a c:COM:VPC issue then. Bring it up there. Other text and images were previously interpreted on enwiki to be copyrighted if they did not have any specific public domain statement on the website at time of copying. In regards to thousands of PD-PhilippinesGov images; many of them are taken from specific sites that do have the public domain notice applied. Even if they didn't, there's also thousands of NoFoP images still up on Commons that still must be deleted. Just because one thing exists, does not mean another should. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: I am not sure where you got the idea that public domain works need to be explicitly marked as such on the source website, but it's not the case on enwiki. The rules surrounding public domain works are often inferred (much like the rules for threshold of originality) and laid out in great detail in WP:PD. Just because one image was deleted does not mean we should delete them all. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: I would like to point out that the law in question does not mention anything about a public domain notice needing to be placed, and this is more closely connected to the government than PNA. Is there a court precedent on this?Techie3 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2021 (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:Pangasinense People.jpg edit

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 2021 October 10. FASTILY 09:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pangasinense People.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:Rhoda title screen.png edit

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 fair use. ✗plicit 23:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this image is above the threshold of originality due to the background. It should probably be deleted or converted to fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the image is above the threshold of originality. I've updated the image to add fair use rationale. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (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:Beth Rowley Gota Fria album cover.jpg edit

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 ⚡ 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of non-free album cover. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my copy of the album, signed by Beth for me and an image I created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldDerbeian (talk • contribs)

Physically owning an object does not mean it is free of others' copyrights. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The uploader may own the album, but physically owning something doesn't mean there's been a copyright transfer agreement between the seller and the buyer. In the case of an album, not only are the songs on the album protected by copyright, but also any packaging associated with the album (e.g. the cover art) is going to be considered protected. This means that the license the file is uploaded under isn't going to be acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. It's exactly for this reason that File:Beth Rowley - Gota Fría.jpg needed to be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content. It's nice when an artist signs something for you, but they aren't transferring any copyright ownership over whatever they sign to you. This is one of the reasons why I think people who seriously collect signatures and the like often request that it be done on something not eligible for copyright protection like a white piece of paper. Just for reference, a signature might also be considered copyrightable in some cases per c:COM:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, but I don't think that applies here. The album cover art is really the only issue with this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Already replaced over two years ago with another image that was uploaded under the correct license and fair use rationale over at Gota Fría. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (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.