Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 28

June 28

File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.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 Consensus is this fails WP:NFCC#8. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art of modestly or less successful (or lesser known) cover recording, despite being charted, of an Elton John song. Unconvinced that the cover art improves understanding of the previously recorded song or the cover recording itself. Unconvinced that omitting this image would impact such understanding. May not contextually signify the song at all. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, charting on five national charts and two national subcharts, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fastily 01:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding with respect to this type of non-free use is that it's allowed in cases where the cover version is deemed to be Wikipedia notable per WP:NSONG.Established practice when it comes to articles about songs seems to be to include all content related to cover versions of the song in the same article for encyclopedic purposes even in cases where a stand-alone article about a particular cover version could be written. Since the cover art for the cover version would be allowed for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article, it's also allowed to be used like it's being used here. Of course, that changes if the cover version is deemed to not meet NSONG. I believe this type of this has been previously discussed at WT:NFCC, but I just don't remember exactly when. Most likely there's relevant discussion related to it buried somewhere in the page's archives. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant this discussion involving multiple book editions from 2019. Right? Honestly, that discussion is primarily about multiple editions, not about songs with multiple recordings. I'll seek others if the discussion wasn't the one. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, re-reading the WP:NFC#CS, notability isn't mentioned there. The only area where the NFC mentions notability is the passage (WP:NFC#UUI) about non-free images of living persons notable for their early careers or appearances. IMO, a non-free content passing NFCC primarily based on the associated topic's notability would assume that the NFCC's standards for cover arts are somewhat... not as high as I would like, i.e. kinda low. However, I think the meaning is wrong, and I hope that's not what you meant, right? George Ho (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned NSONG and articles about songs in the "Covers for multiple editions" discussion you linked to above~~and Masem seemed to be in agreement~~; however, I don't remember the first time I saw this being discussed at WT:NFCC. Maybe try adding a {{Please see}} template for this FFD to WT:NFCC? Someone who has been around since the early days of the NFCC might remember if this came up before.
There is another non-free file for an Ellie Goulding cover version of "Your Song" also being used in that article, but you don't seem to have an issue with that file's non-free use. Is it because the section about that particular version is more developed? Is that the reason why you feel the Rod Stewart file is not OK, but the Ellie Goulding file is OK? That's seems to be more of an WP:ATD type of reason than a WP:NFCCP reason, at least it kind of does to me. Would more content being added to the section about the Rod Stewart cover version make the file's non-free use NFCC compliant? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC); edited 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of cover art for published works, without any direct discussion of the artwork itself that may merit its use, is meant to be used to represent marketing and branding implicitly for notable published works, per WP:NFCI#1. The Rod Stewart version lacks any critical commentary of the single itself (compared to the other cover version in that article), so there shouldn't be cover art. "Critical commentary" about the published work overlaps with notability considerably (since we're looking for secondary-type coverage which would satisfy both), so it could be seen to ask the question if that cover could be its own standalone article under the GNG (not NSONG in this case), which for the Steward cover clearly would not. — Masem (t) 12:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and thank you for clarifying. My apologies if I misrepresented you in my earlier post; I've stricken that part of the post just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not being used as primary visual idetificaiton for the article toic which is the Elton John song, As it is used in a section, there should be significant osurced commentary to meet WP:NFCC#8. As used, it is decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 01:22, 9 July 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:Beit Jala Palestina 1937.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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a photograph of a Palestinian family before moving to Peru, as used in the article Arab Peruvians. The article's description only mentions the family's departure to Peru, which makes the file an illustration without contextual significance.

Moreover, as a sizable community with over 10K population, we could have use other free files like images of mosques or community activities to replace this image. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update It appears that this anonymous image created in 1937 could be in public domain (50 years after publication) according to c:COM:Palestine and c:COM:Israel (the file is photographed in Beit Jala, which is in modern-day Palestinian Authority jurisdiction). This means the file would be in local public domain in 1987 (1937+50), and could catch up with the URAA date. Request changed to restore original version and move to Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not PD like OP claims. In the Copyright rules by territory links provided by OP, both countries have copyright terms lasting 70y after publication (assuming anonymous) or author's death. This means that in the best case scenario (anonymous publication), the image wouldn't be PD in Palestine (or Israel) until 1937+70 = 2007, which is past the URAA cutoff date. Therefore, this image could not possibly be PD in the US until 1937+95 = 2032, making it ineligible for Commons. Keeping this image as non-free is not an option either, as it fails WP:NFCC#1 (absolutely zero reason why a free image couldn't be created). -Fastily 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange... Why did some of the contents say for anonymous photos the copyrighted period is 50 years after publication? Cf. For photographs made before the act [Israeli copyright law, 2007] came into effect the former law [British Copyright Act 1911 (as extended)] applies That is, protection lasts until 1 January of the 51st year after the creation of the photograph. Maybe I understood something wrong.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine, Copyright lasted for the author's life plus 50 years.. Note that this photo does not credit the photogrpaher, but that does not mean it is an anonymous work. Given lifetime + 50, it's reasonable to assume this is still copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 8 July 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:Autogolpe Lima 1992.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is an image showing the military occupying the Government Palace during the 1992 Peruvian self-coup from the AFP. As a self-coup with the aid of the military, the details of military deployment has been thoroughly mentioned in the article. The file's presence is not detrimental to the reader's understanding, and in fact it does not illustrate the point that Fujimori, with the aid of the military, liquidates the legislature with force. The file therefore fails WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be PD. Peru does not copyright simple photographs, but it is not clear how that is defined. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru#Simple photographs and note the bullet point: "In 2008 the court determined that press snapshots of sporting, political or weather events lack originality for lack of prior preparation in their production. See Resolution No 2521-2008/TPI-Indecopi, Agencia Efe S.A. v Las Rosas Editorial S.A.C." Wikiacc (¶) 00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though if the image was simultaneously published in the US (which it likely was, given the AFP credit), it is copyrighted in the US. So my vote is delete unless more information is provided. Wikiacc (¶) 23:18, 1 July 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:EnterTheConqueringChickenReissueFront.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 ⚡ 16:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC as it's not used for critical commentary, necessary for understanding, or even discussed in any educational way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 28 June 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:Malayappa in Vasanthotsavam.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 ⚡ 16:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the license at source https://web.archive.org/web/20110709151610/http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2413061020079105973eOXeXZ — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:25, 28 June 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:Crainquebille1922.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 ⚡ 16:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now available on Commons: c:File:Crainquebille (1922), affiche.jpg Yann (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: For future reference, files nominated for deletion for this reason often qualify for speedy deletion per WP:F8 and don't really need to be discussed here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 28 June 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.