Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1



File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.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: No consensus; defer to WMF Legal. I think this case needs an official opinion by someone well-versed in legal affairs. I see a Commons file that was deleted, but the legal question wwas not officially answered there either Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Anarchyte ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Being a malware does not disqualify this software from copyright protection  Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * First, is it a deletion proposal?
 * Second, the reason why I think this image is not eligible for copyright protection is already on the image description page's Permission field. But I'd like to hear about your version of a world in which malware is copyright-protected. Are people who get infected with malware arrested for unlicnesed software use? Or are they considered licensees? Or are they infected under the auspices of fair use? How about the antivirus companies that reverse-engineer malware? Are they in violation of Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)? DMCA neither accounts for fair use nor has a scienter requirement. It means if malware is protected by DMCA, a person can get arrested for getting infected by it, even if he or she does not know that he or she is infected by it.
 * Best regards, 11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all they might not sue under DMCA but still like a video game it's copyrighted even as a screenshot  Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  15:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you create malware and create a distribution system which installs the malware on random computers, then I'd imagine that you indirectly give the owners of those computers a licence to use your malware. In other words, those who have been attacked are not using an unlicensed copy of the malware but a licensed copy of the malware.
 * Antivirus companies: Sounds interesting. Section 107 begins with the words, so does fair use only exempt you from the protection given by section 106 (economic rights) and 106A (moral rights) but not from, for example, section 1201 (additional moral rights)? However, I'd argue that antivirus companies are allowed to create antivirus software based on section 1201 (f) (1):

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
 * The antivirus company has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of the malware. The antivirus company wants to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program (the antivirus program) with other programs (malware). If this interoperability is achieved, then the antivirus program uninstalls the malware. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have no comment on the copyright, but if it doesn't fall into the public domain, then simply re-add the non-free template.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retag as non-free Copyrighted text. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you justify ignoring ex turpi causa non oritur actio? If the country of origin's copyright laws are not protecting this image, how does U.S.? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ex turpi causa non oritur actio seems to be about the relationship between the victim and the culprit. As far as I am aware, the file's presence on Wikipedia is not related to an attack made against Wikipedia – Wikipedia seems to be a neutral party. I'd say that the ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine only exempts the victims of the attack (and those who assist the victims, such as antivirus companies) from any copyright infringement liability, and only insofar as the copyright infringement is sufficiently related to the attack. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are wrong on three grounds: (1) First, per Title 18 of U.S. Code, Chapter 113B, when a person targets the whole public, Wikipedia, which part of it, is the intended victim, even if it was not affected. (2) This image was published by an intended victim. (3) The ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine also applies to copyright. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as PD. There are a couple of interesting arguments here. CL argues that: "This image is ineligible for copyright protection in the country of origin, in accordance to Ex turpi causa non oritur actio legal doctrine. In U.S., the malware are covered by Title 18 of U.S. Code, Chapter 113B." S2 on the other hand argues that a malware is copyright-protected but is automatically licensed to anyone infected by it. S2 also contents that the premises of the CL's rationale only applies to the victims of the attack. However, in copyright, we already have the concept of automatic eligibility. For example, the copyright protection period in U.S. automatically extends itself; hence, always assume the copyright protection period is the extended period unless proven otherwise. Same here. If the malware is automatically licensed to anyone infected, then I can argue that because the malware does intend to infect anyone and everyone, hence, it is licensed to anyone and everyone, and therefore it is practically free. This also means that since the malware intends to victimize everyone, unlike what S2 said, the ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine exempts everyone.  But of course, there are parts of S2 discussion that are completely wrong. He asserts that "The antivirus company wants to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program". Perhaps he should have tried paraphrasing himself. He is in effect saying: The antivirus company wants to design a antivirus that works hand-in-hand with the virus!. Of course they don't. They intend to stop, disrupt, and defeat malware. These are exactly the provisions against which DMCA provides protection. That said, I do not subscribe to any part of the argument that malware developers are entitled to any right granted by the law that protects their wrongdoing.  Fleet  Command  ( Speak your mind! ) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (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:St. George&

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:St. George& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Maximus.rai ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete. The "logo" fair use explanation does not apply because this is clearly a photograph of the building, not a logo.

It fails to meet the non-free image criterion of no free equivalent because anyone in the area could simply photograph this building. —Guanaco 04:33, 1 June 2017 (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:Sun (film).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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Sun (film).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lord Cornwallis ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Apparently free at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2017 (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:King abgar illustration.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:King abgar illustration.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by 517design ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Illustration is considered free at Commons ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2017 (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:Indiana State Stone (Sculpture).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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Indiana State Stone (Sculpture).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mcharles57 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Deemed free at Commons ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2017 (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:Covfefe tweet.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; deleted as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  20:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Covfefe tweet.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Nixinova ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Clearly not the work of the uploader, but the work of Donald Trump. Probably meets the minimum threshold of creativity for copyright protection. I don't know whether tweets from Trump's personal account (as opposed to from the official POTUS account) count as public domain works of the US government, therefore I'm opening this discussion.  Sandstein  10:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether or not Trump's personal account is a government work (I would lean no), Twitter's user interface is clearly copyrighted and passes the threshold of originality. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. According Twitter's terms of service, the content belongs to Donald Trump. It is a stretch to say he was posting as a government officer "as part of that person's official duties."For fair use purposes, that screen grab is not irreplaceable for getting the important facts about the tweet. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2017 (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:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 (&

 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * File:JK - personalised artwork - Mercury 07-01-2002 (& ([ 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.