Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 24



File:Ken Griffin High School.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: unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide links and citations proving that a) the yearbook's distribution legally constitutes publication and b) the actual copyright holder (it must also be determined if this is the school or the photographer) published the image without a copyright notice before 1989 - F ASTILY   00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Ken Griffin High School.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Deltagammaz ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a yearbook photo. Yearbooks are collections of works and any copyright applies to the collection, not to individual works in the collection. The photographer may retain the copyright for the student photo (those photos are sold to parents, for example). Mo Billings (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mo, I disagree. At least from what I have read that is wrong. The yearbook does not have any copyright notice and was published before 1989 so it is in the public domain. Additionally most schools sign contracts with photographers which give the school the copyright. This photo could probably also be considered fair use considering it's historical context so...
 * As I explained, the yearbook is a collection. The copyright on the yearbook would apply to the yearbook (collection) not to the individual images. The lack of a copyright notice does not mean that the individual images are not copyrighted. We do not know if the photographer retained copyright or if the copyright was assigned to the school or if this was a work-for-hire. Without that information, we should not assume that this is in the public domain. Mo Billings (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the relevant template is PD-US-1989. Nominator appears not to be aware that before 1989, publishing a copyrighted work without a copyright notice or registration was enough to put a work in the public domain. (And for compilations, this applied to all the constituent parts as well.) Nonetheless, it's unclear whether the distribution of the yearbook counts as publication. Wikiacc (¶) 01:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in these things, but this article and this article discuss the compilation issue with yearbooks. Mo Billings (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both posts are good explainers (see also c:Commons:Hirtle chart). Both are clear that if there was no copyright notice and no registration, it's public domain. Wikiacc (¶) 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding post-1977 yearbooks without copyright notices, one says:
 * The other says:
 * It doesn't seem to be as straightforward as simply consulting the Hirtle chart in this case. Mo Billings (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The blog posts and the Hirtle chart all agree with each other. The first post points to the Hirtle chart explicitly. By "researched", the second post means to search the copyright registration records from 1985 to 1990. Anyone is welcome to do this (though it's time-consuming and thankless work). Wikiacc (¶) 01:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I quoted the relevant portions of those two articles. We draw opposite conclusions from the same words. Both articles suggest that the school may not be the copyright holder for the photographs contained in yearbooks. I'm sure I could find more sources, but it isn't worth the effort if we can't agree on what is being said. Mo Billings (talk) 03:28, 31 October 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.
 * I quoted the relevant portions of those two articles. We draw opposite conclusions from the same words. Both articles suggest that the school may not be the copyright holder for the photographs contained in yearbooks. I'm sure I could find more sources, but it isn't worth the effort if we can't agree on what is being said. Mo Billings (talk) 03:28, 31 October 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.

File:Nobody Does It Better cover.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, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Nobody Does It Better cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Rlendog ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The image was probably ripped or derived from the Portuguese cover (discogs, 45cat, rateyourmusic). I uploaded File:Nobody Does It Better by Carly Simon US single 1977.png as an intended replacement. However, the uploader de-PRODded the file, saying in the edit summary: "wikipedia is not meant to be US-only. Official covers from any country are appropriate." I'm not trying to make Wikipedia the US-only project. I do upload covers representing or reflecting a band's or an artist's nationality. However, my main concern is the cover's questionable authenticity, its ability to be irreplaceable, and its ability to help readers understand the release of a James Bond song by Carly Simon. I'm confident that a free image should suffice. If it doesn't, then a non-free cover and a free image can coexist in one article but not when the non-free image is the nominated questionable one. George Ho (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the replacement if necessary, but I am not sure what makes the authenticity of the Portuguese cover questionable. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The derived image is not used for the Portuguese release. Rather it is used for the US release, which officially used the generic sleeve (45cat, discogs, ebay (1), ebay (2)) instead of a picture sleeve. Furthermore, the more authentic Portuguese cover displays the B-side track on the front cover. The altered derivative blurred out the Portuguese language and blacked out the name of the B-side track. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 24 October 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.

File:Aden Adde International Airport.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, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Aden Adde International Airport.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by GoldenDragonHorn ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image was uploaded in good faith from a Flickr source tagged with a free license, but I have significant doubts that the Flickr source actually is the copyright holder. The image in question has EXIF indicating it is copied from a Facebook related app. A review of the photostream shows inconsistent EXIF information and wildly different resolutions for images as well as even one image that bears a watermark. Whpq (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Whpq, is there a way to see where the image first appeared and their original author via reverse image search? As for now, the image should be deleted. I will place Flickr images from now on under more scrutiny before I upload them. I saw the CC tag and ran with it. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not find anything on a reverse image search. I use Google for reverse image search and it is only going to know about what it indexes, and I suspect that indexing obscure facebook accounts is not high on the priority list. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Whpq: Yeah, I doubt I'll be able to find the original author, and salvage the image from deletion by getting the correct permission. Lesson learned. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:32, 24 October 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.

File:Grand Canyon by Kenneth Tucker 1.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, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Grand Canyon by Kenneth Tucker 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Kennethtucker ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Only two contributions by this user are their user page and this image in 2005. No evidence that the image was ever used anywhere, currently orphaned. Because of the lack of contribution and the intervening time, it would be difficult to confirm that they uploader is the author in order to authenticate the licensing in order to transfer to Commons. ★ Bigr   Tex  22:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 25 October 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.