Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 6



File:Adult-art-artisan.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: relisted on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Adult-art-artisan.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:Jody Wilson-Raybould at Commons Justice Committee.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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Jody Wilson-Raybould at Commons Justice Committee.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mr.Gold1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Likely a copyvio. Image claimed to be own work but the exact same image is used in numerous news articles such as here and here where the image is clearly attributed to Reuters. Metadata has been stripped. A similar photo uploaded by the user has previously been for copyvio, and the user was blocked on Commons for uploading unfree files. Sharper 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with my fellow colleagues, the fact that a file has been used all over the internet and news media are not grounds for deletion or copyright violation. Multiple image files can be taken by different individuals depicting the same event as is the case when many photographers including amateur photographers are allowed for a pool spray during political events. We should encourage the growth and contribution of Wikipedia and not restrict it. I’m afraid actions like these discourage many from editing and contributing to a beautiful project which is Wikipedia. It’s not for the select few but everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthVault (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 'Speedy Delete as a clear copyright violation. This isn't a case of an image that looks similar and may have been shot by another photographer in the press pool.  It'ss the exact same image as the Reuters photo. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Where’s the evidence that the image on Wikipedia is the exact one on Reuters. Evidence like resolution comparison, metadata and such. Just because images show the same event doesn’t mean they’re the same.
 * Provide evidence that the image in question is from Reuters. Prove that they’re the same image and who’s the author of the image at Reuters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthVault (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks identical to the Reuters image. That said, just because Reuters carried the image doesn't mean they have the copyright.  They could be using a public domain image (although I doubt it).206.47.249.246 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (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.