Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 4



File:Lady chatterley's lover 1960 UK unexpurgated edition.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 - F ASTILY   08:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Lady chatterley& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by George Ho ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Does not satisfy WP:NFCC I'm genuinely curious about the fair use rationale on this. Penguin licenses its historic material commercially, including this specific cover, which includes branding and trademark material. I did upload a similar image some years ago and wondered if it was legit. I suspect no penguin covers are usable without Penguin's release. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 19:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The front cover is only used to display the Penguin edition. Furthermore, we had a discussion about the Commons copy (File:Lady Chatterley's Lover Penguin.jpg), which you uploaded with one of CC licenses. Moreover, no other material of the edition is used. Penguin's "branding and trademark material" is not used to replace its commercial role. It is also not used to bypass trademark limits. I made the cover as small as possible per WP:IUP. Something tells me that copyright stuff boggles your mind unless I stand corrected. The "no permission since" tag, which is placed on the Commons copy, is intended primarily for "freely-licensed" content that may not be free to share and distribute at all. Meanwhile, there are open content licenses and copyleft for you to read. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC. The cover is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the article subject in either article. File:Lady chatterley's lover 1932 UK (Secker).png is used for that purpose in Lady Chatterley's Lover, and the book isn't the main subject of R v Penguin Books Ltd; the trial is. (WP:NFC) Neither article has sourced critical commentary about the cover itself. Moreover, removal would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of wither article subject. (I don't have any concerns with criterion 2.) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I don't agree that with the nominator that WP:NFCC is an issue, I do agree with JJMC89 in that neither of the file's two uses meet WP:NFCC (see WP:NFC and WP:NFC). It doesn't seem that the cover art itself had anything to do with the 1960 obscenity trial involving Penguin, but rather it was the content of the book which was claimed to be obscene. Perhaps it could be argued that showing the cover art is the only way to visually represent the trial and all that it involved, but then again it was the trial that might be considered historic and not necessarily any imagery associated with it. If there was some actual discussion during the trial about the book covers, and content about this can be found and added to the R v Penguin Books Ltd, then perhaps the non-free use in just that article could be justified; otherwise, I don't think it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would note that an image of this cover is used in the 'Penguin Postcards' product and must therefore must have been licensed by Penguin. Also agree that the image isn't particularly relevant to the article and no great loss. "Something tells me that copyright stuff boggles your mind unless I stand corrected.". Please assume good faith and refrain from mind-reading and personal remarks.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 09:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck out the remarks. George Ho (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please only WP:!VOTE once. When you nominated the file for discussion, you were essentially !voting for it to be deleted. So, basically repeating your !vote again is not only unnecessary, but it's also improper. If you want to respond to George Ho's comment you may, but you should do so beneath his comment as explained in WP:AFDFORMAT and not as a second !vote. Please strike through your second !vote. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2020 (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.