Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2025 January 8}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2025 January 8}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The image was uploaded by one user without license/FUR. Another image was uploaded over it by another user. FUR was probably copied from this image. Because the photographer is a user who is not in the file's modification history. FUR in the "Author" and "Source" sections contradicts itself. 1-2 images were uploaded over it by a third user. FUR was not modified. The image, according to WP:FREER (3D), WP:NFCC#10a and c:COM:PCP, should be deleted. — Ирука 03:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Iruka13 has absolutely no understanding of how Wikipedia works. There is a consensus that in articles about music singles it is acceptable to use the cover art for each version.--Sanslogique (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such link (or maybe there is), because the consensus is based on common usage practices. A lot of articles use multiple images of singles, if that doesn't suit you, you can start a discussion about it so that only one remains, at the top of the page.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I agree that you should start a discussion about removing single covers from other articles if you are not satisfied with the current consensus. Otherwise, I will regard your edits as vandalism.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Two versions became hits in the same year, 1961. One topped in two countries; this (other) topped in two other countries. Hard to tell which version is more prominent than the other. Oh, and an amount of sentences isn't a sufficient indicator/measurement of "contextual significance". Rather two versions were equally and locally successful, and neither is more prominent than the other, so deleting this cover art and keeping the other wouldn't be wise, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete File:AmityUni-logo.png: This is a free-use image, limited to 100,000 dots. In this version, nearly the entire image (aside from some whitespace) is dedicated to displaying the seal. In contrast, the alternative version uses less than 30% of the image for the seal, with the remainder duplicating the text "Amity University," which is already present on the seal itself. Muhandes (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Synopsis section primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Using this non-free image is not essential to convey the point that the video game Black Myth: Wukong is inspired by the classical novel Journey to the West. Wcam (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your claim that it is decorative is false. It is used to make a comparison between the video game and the classical novel (the original work serving as the inspiration for the video game).
It shows how the video game uses elements from the classical novel, such as in its game characters (Rakshasi is a character that drives a plotline) and its gameplay (the Plantain Fan is an item used in combat). This purpose is further highlighted by the fact that this non-free image is used in conjunction with a (public domain) image from the original work in a {{Multiple image}} template, which actually does contain commentary sourced to IGN, South China Morning Post, et al. Both the character and the item depicted are discussed in the Wiki article and the caption. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's main text lacks any sourced commentary specifically discussing the design of the Rakshasi character. The only mention of Rakshasi is within the Plots section, where numerous characters are briefly mentioned, failing to provide the specific context required by WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the use of this non-free image is not essential to convey the game's inspiration from the classical novel Journey to the West. The game's overall design and character concepts, including Rakshasi, are clearly influenced by the novel, and this can be conveyed through textual descriptions and references to the source material (WP:FREER#b). Wcam (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement is well-fulfilled. There is sourced commentary about the character, the similar role she fulfills in both stories, and the similar item (a plantain fan) she possess in both stories. This is all highlighted in the text and both images. Therefore, the non-free image (from the video game) in conjunction with the free image (from the novel) is invaluable to highlight how the video game has been inspired by the novel, whether characters, stories, or gameplay. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This non-free screenshot currently used in the Black Myth: Wukong article under the Plots subsection primarily serves a decorative purpose. As the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary, the required context outlined in WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. While the Development section briefly mentions the game's inspiration from real-life buildings and statues, using this specific non-free screenshot is not essential to convey this information. The screenshot's current placement in the Plots section is inappropriate and does not directly contribute to the understanding of the game's narrative. Therefore, the non-free screenshot should be removed. Wcam (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first FfD so apologizes in advanced I believe this fails NFC8 as it adds little context. The in article caption states that it depicts Dexter finding a body he previously disposed off while the image is simply Dexter standing around. It is unclear what he's doing Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I uploaded the photo.
Dexter is in shock after finding a body he dumped in an ocean laying on a table.
The image is obviously a cut-out and slightly enlarged part of this image. According to c:COM:Own work, such an action does not give authorship. The columns "Source", "Author" and "Date", as well as the license, must be re-issued in accordance with the original photo. Which must be deleted, but here is not Commons. — Ирука 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup, User:Iruka13. I made the closeup photograph that is diplayed to the left and followed what was understood in its description when creating the WP file. I do not know why you presume an image from which it is cropped. It seems that the disposition of a specific file is why you are calling for the action you have noted regarding the file I uploaded that was accepted during review — years ago.
Loss of the closeup image seems detrimental to WP where it is applied to the discussion of the minute detail at the article on the Narmer_Palette, please do not delete it. I also plan to use it for an edit of another article.
The subject is an Ancient Egyptian artifact of unknown artistic origin, a cosmetic tray. No claim regarding creation of the artifact is asserted, only of creation of the closeup photograph. Noting the detail about Hathor on top of columns depicted below the belt of a king figure depictred on the tray — has a distinct purpose that calls for the closeup.
Please clarify exactly how you would prefer the description to read and I will edit the file following your instructions.
Also, my understanding is, that an editor is free to exercise the option offered to stipulate local retention — please advise whether that has been changed — as I continue to want to exercise that option. I do not understand your last sentence, please clarify that as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided this because I saw several similar images in your contribution - unlike this one, the source of those images is only other images, although the file description says that you are their author. And also because of the lack of metadata. And, of course, when comparing the images as such.
Please provide a link to the discussion in which the image was accepted.
Unclear copyright status. This has been tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, which implies that it was first published in the United States. However, it has also been tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} with an expiration based on Mexican copyright law, which implies that it was first published in Mexico. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kahlo was living in the U.S. at the time that the self-portait was made. If we consider this as publishing without copyright notice, then it is in the Public Domain. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I don't know what the copyright laws of Italy are, but the painting was presumably painted in Italy as it is under the Florence section (beside other paintings which were clearly painted of Florence), and the artist's bio states he was in Florence from 1935-1943. Alternatively, per his bio in 1940/1941 there was an exhibition of his paintings in Bern. I don't know if this painting was first exhibited there, or if that would be considered "published", but if so then Switzerland would be the relevant country's copyright laws to consider. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference if the source country is Italy or Switzerland instead of Germany; in all three cases, the painting was protected in the source country on 1 January 1996 and so is copyrighted in the United States per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
One cover is enough for demonstration (WP:NFCC#3). Moreover, to demonstrate the appearance, it is enough to take any simple cover and replace the company logo with a white oval - the encyclopedic significance of the image will not suffer from this (WP:FREER). Image is not the object of sourced commentary (WP:NFCC#8). — Ирука 12:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems useful to me to demonstrate the degree of variation vs degree of consistency across the scheme. The rightmost cover is an example of the Marber Grid, noted later in the article. Caption could be made more informative to highlight this. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, not every article can have a good infobox image. I think this image would be fine as a free, but it is not needed as a non-free one. Besides, the image only serves this function ("primary identification"): it is not encyclopedic without identifying each character (WP:NFCC#5). This image should have a caption that identifies them (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS); and it should be placed in the most appropriate section of the article (MOS:SECTIONLOC / WP:NFCC#6). And the image could probably be enlarged by 15-25%. — Ирука 12:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused by the rationale here. Why are you arguing for deletion when you give several solutions to problems only tangentially related to the article's use case? Captions and section location can be discussed editorially; this does not need to be brought to FfD. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The file violates NFCC and should be deleted via F7#d after 3 days if no one fixes the situation with it. — Ирука 20:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This logo does not meet the Threshold of Originality. The fleur-de-lis is ineligible for copyright based on the fact that it is too simple of a shape and older than the city of New Orleans. The stylized version is not complicated enough to merit copyright, in my opinion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I appreciate your intentions, but I think the title card would be more suitable for other wikis that don't allow non-free content, like probably German Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the single cover art itself is too irreplaceable to be replaced by freer alternatives. Also, the title card alone might not help readers sufficiently be associated with the song. The "Word Crimes" title card is used primarily because no cover art for (supposed) single release has existed to this date. Couldn't find the physical single release of "Word Crimes" on eBay or Discogs to this date. Couldn't find the digital single release on iTunes Store or Spotify or any other music streaming service to this date. George Ho (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno whether I'd like to upload a (non-free) title card of the lyric video. Sometimes, if there's no suitable free alternative, a "no image" approach/option would've been safer than a potentially omissible/deletable non-free image, but I guess certain editors believe that readers would potentially understand a non-free content's contextual significance to the topic in question. I thought about nominating the title card for "discussion", but I'd like your response first. Re-reading MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, I'm uncertain whether a non-free title card complies with the guideline, especially #4 of its rule #1. George Ho (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not necessary to replace the official single cover in the infobox of the article. This applies for all articles about singles, if an official cover is available (i.e. not simply the cover of the album it originates from). TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? Did you really upload your own title card file just so you can nominate this for deletion? This is the single cover. If there is one, then that should be used. Like George mentioned, the Weird Al one is only replaced with a title card since there is no single cover. This is literally the single cover. Why would anyone replace it with a title card? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFCC#1, [n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The cover art is used purely to identify the song; the cover art itself is not the subject of critical commentary. The title card fulfills the same purpose of identifying the song as the cover art; thus, the latter should be deleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does "critical commentary" matter when the cover art already contextualizes its significance to or association with the song? Readers would see the cover art and then realize its officiality and branding to the song. Without the cover art, readers would be misled into thinking that any unsuitable alternative is "suitable" replacement to the one you're nominating now. Furthermore, look at the votes so far, and tell me that the majority is mistaken, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that it has to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Are you really going to sit here and tell me the title card from the lyric video has the same encyclopedic value as the single cover? What purpose does the title card even serve when nobody has seen that before, compared to the single cover which was used on streaming services? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot's contextual significance to the whole song or the whole music video questionable. Illustrates a scene, but doubtful that it contextually signifies the subject of discussion. Also, doubtful that omitting this image would affect the understanding of the topic that can be already understood when reading the whole article. Furthermore, there's a free image of the actor who appeared in the music video. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NFCC#10b, the image license should be changed to {{Non-free 3D art}}. A photographer's license must also be added.
The design of the object in the photo is over 120 years old and is in the public domain. Hundreds of such objects have been released over 120+ years; the society is still active, which means they are still being released. Thus, it is more than possible to make a free photo of the object. According to WP:NFCC#1, the image should be deleted. — Ирука 10:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Placement in the infobox as the group's graphical identifier supersedes the placement guidelines cited above. (MOS:SECTIONLOC, Template:Infobox fraternity/doc and WP:NFCC#10с). Sure, if we had a crest, we'd properly move the image, in smaller format, to the subsection where it is described. But in this case, we've found no suitable printed crest or logo, and are using this image of a PD 3D pin as the organization's identifier. There is no commercial value to this image, nor does its use harm the entity's commercial usage. Also per the above, I have adjusted the image license. Jax MN (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no known logo or crest for this society, making the badge the primary organizational symbols. (The article linked through the photograph description also states that this is the organization's symbol). While you can assume that many such badges have been released making it easy to take a free photo, we have no proof of this theory. This is because the rituals and practices of the organization are tightly held secrets. For example, this badge could only be awarded as a special honor, a prize, or to retiring presidents--making it much scarcer than you suggest. We also do not know that this badge design is 120 years old and in public domain; the badge in the article was issued in 1936 or 89 years ago. Both historic and modern books about this organization do not include a photo or illustration of the badge and no known badges have been available for sale through venors who specialize this fraternal badges, despite the fact that there are people who activiely try to find out more about this and other such Ivy League secret societies. As noted in its linked source, this badge was only available to be photographed because it was stolen from a member. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation that someone else could take a free photo of this official society symbol. As noted by @Jax MN, there is no commercial value to the image. In contrast, sharing this photo and providing a link to the original article promotes and provides benefit to the nonprofit organization who originally took and shared the photograph. 17:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The digital/streaming release's cover art is more provocative and more revealing than the CD/vinyl one. Omit this (CD/vinyl) cover art, and you'd be left with the more provocative and revealing cover art. Furthermore, neither CD nor vinyl is a dead format (yet), despite their lack of prominence compared to their own heydays.
Also, it's not like Rebel Heart, whose main artwork shows the musician's/artist's face wrapped in wires and is less provocative and revealing than this (other) album's. Well, it's not like Love for Sale (Boney M. album) either, which has critical commentary. I even nominated its alternative cover to FFD just once, and the result was "kept". Nonetheless, even artworks lacking critical commentary may still be contextually significant to the album and its releases/editions. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that the photo was taken in 1980, published without a copyright statement, it is still not free in the US as WP:URAA. — Ирука 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image being used in Mary Jane Veloso drug smuggling case#Stay of execution in a way that fails to meet WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). A non-free photo showing former Philippine president Benigno Aquino III phoning the Indonesian foreign minister doesn't really need to be seen by readers just to illustrate such a call happened since the encyclopedic significance of the call can be more than easily understood from reliably sourced textual content. The call itself might have been an historic event in a sense, but images of it being made aren't necessarily historic as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. If this particular photo itself was at the time or has since been the subject of sourced critical commentary of the phone call, then perhaps its non-free use would meet NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 if reliably sourced content related to such commentary about the photo of the call is added to the article; otherwise, readers of the article can more than sufficiently understand the sentence "Aquino went as far as to break diplomatic protocol by directly making a phone call to Indonesian foreign minister Retno Marsudi using a burner phone on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia hours before Veloso's scheduled execution." without seeing this or any other non-free photo of the call, -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a free image of Routh. The flags seem de minimis, and without them I'd have no idea this was a Ukraine protest. EF02:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8. There are other free images of Routh on Commons. The only text related to this image is the sentence "Routh was filmed at an April 2022 protest in Independence Square in Kyiv", which is easily understood through text alone. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who uploaded the high quality image, if my opinion means anything, agree with this. Reading through that page and having a cursory glance at Copyright law abd such, I think that we cannot confirm the image was published early enough to be in the public domain.
Firstly, this is not a simple photograph: people are posing. Secondly, there is no evidence that it was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright notice on the postcard. This means that the photo entered the public domain in the United States immediately when the postcard was published, unless it had already previously entered the public domain. Assuming that Italy was the country of first publication, the photo was in the public domain in the source country in 1996, so the photo's United States copyright status is either {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (if published before 1930) or {{PD-URAA}} (if published in 1930 or later). In either case, it's in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a 3D photo of a book, we probably need permission from the photographer.
The first UK edition of this book is in the public domain in the US as it was published before 1929. However, the article uses the image caption First US edition. As it is not known if the first UK edition and the first US edition used the same covers or when the first US edition was published, it is unclear if this cover is in the public domain in the US. If the US cover is copyrighted, the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by the cover of the first UK edition.
The text of the book is in the public domain in the UK as the author died more than 70 years ago. However, Wikipedia does not disclose who the cover artist is (maybe it says in the book), so the cover's copyright status in the UK remains unknown. In Special:Diff/1223558859, User:Wiiformii added {{subst:Out of copyright in|2025}}, claiming that the Author died in 1954, but as the user didn't disclose who the cover artist is, this information is unverifiable. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't well versed in the rules when I added that and I used the death of the writer not the artist, I agree with your ideas though as it truly isn't a 2d scan and is not even guaranteed to be in the public domain in the UK although it is in America as you said as it was published before January 1, 1930. Wiiformii (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You always need to wait until the artist has been dead for at least 70 years.
In some cases, the cover art is a derivative work of the text. In this situation, you have to wait until both the artist and the writer have been dead for 70 years. However, in some cases the cover artist doesn't take any copyrightable elements from the text, and then you only need to consider the cover artist. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Regarding US copyright, I doubt the 3D photo contains any more originality than a 2D scan. But I agree the UK copyright is too unclear to move to Commons. Wikiacc (¶) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a flat scan. Scans are undeniably below the TOO for their own copyright, while the 3D image (lighting, etc.) gets much dicier. As the item is free in the US as of January 1st, this would allow us to keep a local scan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt that this is a CC file, might be PD for some reason but a source is needed. Can't seem to find any corresponding article where this can be used at. --Min☠︎rax04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the uploader, they should be deleted, I uploaded them a while ago and forgot that I had uploaded them, apologies. CIN I&II (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the visual design of box set in the article is not described in terms of reliable sources, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). In addition, this three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. — Ирука 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photograph of the box set is clearly done by the publisher that owns the copyright to the box set and cover art (as part of the promotional material to send out the box art), so there is not a separate copyright, so the FREER argument falls apart. Once you clear that, then the other arguments for delete fall apart - the 3d photograph will have the same copyright burden as the 2d cover. Masem (t) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source page does not actually say if it was published in 1929 or not, so it could still be copyrighted. Also, as the source is the BBC, the photo, if published, could have been published first in the UK, in which case it would at best be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} instead of {{PD-US}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously identified as "free" without any justification; 1933 films don't become PD in the US until 2029. Currently used only in a cast list, and thus it does not meet the non-free criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
De-PRODding rationale was this: harmless; useful for identification; and usefully gives a sense of the feel of the series. However, usefulness is something to be careful to argue about. So is "harmless". Neither usefulness nor harmlessness is an excuse for the DVD covers' potential failure to comply with NFCC. Sure, there are actors in the covers, but I don't see how they add anything to understanding, i.e. contextually signify, the short-lived TV parodical series. Also, treating individual seasons/series as if they are individually notable may insufficently justify use of the DVD covers... unless we wanna be consistent with other articles using DVD covers? So far as I can see, very few or no articles use DVD covers as separate from title cards or title logos for TV series articles. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===January 8===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+1%23File%3AAlternative+versions+of+Spider-Man+%28Nick+Bradshaw%26%2339%3Bs+art%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+2%23File%3ATaylor+Swift+-+Love+Story+%28music+video+screenshot%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+2%23File%3AZara+Larsson+-+VENUS+%28Vinyl+Cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+3%23File%3AAndr%C3%A9+Derain%2C+1907+%28Automne%29%2C+Nu+debout%2C+limestone%2C+95+x+33+x+17+cm%2C+Mus%C3%A9e+National+d%26%2339%3BArt+Moderne.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_Nu_debout,_limestone,_95_x_33_x_17_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_National_d%27Art_Moderne.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2025+January+8%23File%3AStaind+-+Tormented+%28back+cover%29.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
