Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 14



File:Gaohuaide 1858.jpg.ext

 * 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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Gaohuaide 1858.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Timmyshin (me) ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orphan Timmyshin (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Yasuzo Masumura.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: Kept; the newer image was deleted on the Commons on 16 September. Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Yasuzo Masumura.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Doctor Sunshine ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

replaced by a free file. Matanya (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore to the article I don't trust the new image, it appears to be flickrwashing. From the same Flickr account, you can find a Lady Snowblood image with the same license. This Lady Snowblood image should still be under copyright. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:June 12 2004-billboards of lahore-beauty girl-c.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: Keep per Nytend, posters are not intended to be relocated. Image is covered by FOP-Pakistan so no copyright infringement
 * File:June 12 2004-billboards of lahore-beauty girl-c.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Pale blue dot ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This photo is a faithful representation of a billboard that is likely under copyright. Although Pakistan does have a liberal Freedom of Panorama law, it is doubtful that a billboard could be considered "permanent." See |discussion here, and also listing for a related file. Pete (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Why wouldn't it be considered permanent? Do the creators of billboard advertisements plan to take the advertisement out of the public eye for part of its life?  See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama, which notes that "permanent" includes ice sculptures that get exhibited out on the street in above-freezing temperatures: images of them are appropriate if taken in FoP countries if the owners meant them to stay there until they melt, because "permanent" means "for the life of the work".  Billboard designs get left in place until they're taken down and someone gets rid of them, or until they get destroyed by having another design pasted on top — billboard pictures (e.g. the advertising picture and words, as opposed to the wooden sign itself) aren't designed to be taken down and preserved somewhere else, and even if one were to be taken down after it was put up, placement counts as "permanent" unless the advertising company always planned to move the sign somewhere else. Pasting another sign on top of the first one is quite destructive (imagine trying to separate two pieces of paper that have been glued together), so it's definitely not a case of "relocation".  Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the definition of "permanent" on Commons exclusively is based on German law. Other countries might define "permanent" in a different way (but Commons doesn't properly inform about this). I have no idea whether Pakistan defines the word "permanent" in the same way as Germany.
 * Under the German definition, the idea is that it is permanent if there is no fixed end date of the display. An advertiser usually pays to show the advertisement for a certain fixed limited amount of time, after which the advertisement usually is removed. As there is a fixed end date of the display, this isn't permanent according to the German definition. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to simply delete the file from Wikipedia at this point? It is not used in any article, and it's unlikely it will be. If anybody believes it has value and has no copyright problems, I would encourage them to simply upload it to Wikimedia Commons. -Pete (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.