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. Quite simply, this is not a screenshot. Chick Bowen 19:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:3DS Home Menu.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The World's Greatest Detective (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is replaceable with a "Free-er" version. A image can be taken by someone who owns the games console and they can release that image cc-by-sa and a fair use can be made for parts of the UI fall under Nintendo's copyright. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: Wrong forum: FFD is a place for applying policy, not for changing it. To attempt to deprecate the ((Keep Local)) template, go to WP:VP/P. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paman languages.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kwamikagami (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Duplicate of the file from Commons. Have discussed with the requester who wants a copy on en.wiki. But i do not agree with them on this. Also listing another file for same reason.

• File:Pama-Nyungan and non-Pama-Nyungan.png, copy on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. There is no requirement of a reason to keep files local beyond the request of the submitter. Your disagreeing with Kwami is completely irrelevant. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami has uploaded many images to en wiki, most of which are free and can be uploaded/moved to Commons for global use. If all (there are many, not just 10-12) these images are going to be duplicated here, whats the purpose of Commons?
My personal disagreement has nothing to do with this. I was just putting the history as to why the image was not deleted by the usual process that is followed for duplicate files. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of commons is that files can be used on other wikis. Keeping a copy on-wiki impacts that purpose in no way whatsoever. Your disagreement with Kwami - "i do not agree with them on this" - is the only argument that you've given, and I find it completely without merit. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we consider files also cheap enough to keep multiple copies like redirects are considered? And my argument for deletion precedes that statement; duplicate file. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no listing of acceptable or unacceptable reasons to tag something to keep local, and the practice has always been to respect the wishes of those who request local copies be retained. The end result of a deletion here is to encourage editors to be more restrictive in their contributions, or to flat-out lie about the copyright status of their contributions. If I knew that my request for a local copy was going to be spat on, I certainly wouldn't submit content. Quite frankly, I would argue that the only respectful way of only having only one copy is to delete the copy on Commons, so that we can retain the wishes of the uploader. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only support you can find for your jihad against local copies is an essay. Consider me underwhelmed. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Keep all the images at several places. I no more wish to avoid duplication and save server space if am being called jihadi for that. (Not closing the discussion as LightGreenApple has voted for deletion below.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were under the misapprehension that a bad-faith nom against the expressed wishes of the uploader would go unchallenged. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Willing to reconsider if Kwamikagami can give a coherent reason other than "For when it gets deleted from commons", if it ever does he can then go to WP:DRV and request it be undeleted here. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 06:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Commons is a horrible place that no editor in his right mind ever wants to deal with. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see why Kwami gets special treatment for his files. If they're on commons now, then they can be deleted. If we don't delete these, then we should never delete any files anyone requests to keep a local copy of, but we do that regularly at FFD. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly disheartening to hear that ((Keep local)) tagging is regularly treated with such disdain around here. I don't want an exception for Kwami, I want FFD to always respect editors who want local copies, but I guess spitting on uploaders is the norm. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - quote from WP:WHYCOMMONS: "When you upload images to Wikipedia under a free license, other users may move them from Wikipedia to Commons. This is expressly permitted by the free license under which the images are released. If you want to prevent images uploaded directly to Wikipedia from being deleted locally after being copied to Commons, use the ((Keep local)) tag." Nowhere at WP:WHYCOMMONS, template:Keep local, or any other WP:Commons* pages does it say anything about ignoring the intent of the tagging editor to prevent local deletion, or that any justification is necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:WHYCOMMONS. I've had horrible experiences at Commons, and it can take months to get anything accomplished there. It may not look like it, but I am trying to phase out my participation on WP, so I may not be around to file the DRV when Commons changes their requirements once again and decides that this image is inappropriate for them. It's not like they'll return it to WP-en when they do. The way I look at it, we can keep a local copy, and not worry about it, or we can delete the local copy, and risk either months of battling over it later, or having it simply deleted from all WP-en articles if there's no-one around to fight for it.

I do not propose keeping local copies of everything I upload. If something is transparently PD, such as a generic Commons map that I color in, or png copies of letters of the alphabet, then I don't worry about it. However, if something is not transparently PD to the most ignorant observer, if there was any creative work at all involved in making it, then it's only safe as long as Commons takes me at my word that I have the right to release it. What happens when some zealous bureaucrat decides that anything not modified from an existing Commons image is suspect, and when I'm no longer around to justify it? If (or when) they add yet another licensing requirement, and I'm not around to supply it, and no-one else here knows the details? Commons is too arbitrarily bureaucratic to be a safe repository. Let's copy WP-en files to Commons so that everyone can use them—that's the purpose of Commons, and a good cause. But when editors want to keep local copies, per WHYCOMMONS, then respect that and allow them to stay local. Otherwise, post a warning at WHYCOMMONS that editors do not respect ((keep local)), and that after an image is moved, it may be deleted from both WP-en and Commons, and the uploader will need to go file at DRV to get it back. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It says "Source: commons map". This implies that this is a derivative work of some unidentified Commons map. Most maps on Commons require attributing the author, but no independent map designer is credited, and without a clear source, it isn't possible to tell if the underlying map needs attribution (e.g. GFDL or CC-BY) or whether it doesn't require attribution (e.g. PD-self or cc-zero). If the licence of the underlying map requires attribution, then this one is a copyright violation unless the underlying map was drawn entirely by User:Kwamikagami himself, due to the lack of attribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why we should keep a local copy. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to keep copyright violations, neither locally, nor at Commons. This needs to be deleted at both projects unless the copyright issue is solved. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Languages.png VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of situation that makes commons so insufferably horrible to work in. People just like Stefan wantonly delete files, screwing up pages and projects, on the basis of completely fatuous accusations of infringement. Literally the FIRST search term I tried gave me the pd-self file being referred to. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((Keep local)) is no special permission to keep copyright violations. Copyright violations are deleted regardless of which project they are uploaded to, so this has nothing to do with Commons. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide sufficient source information. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is, in absolutely no way, a copyright violation of any kind, and a public domain work requires zero attribution. So your point is that Kwami should be forced to subject himself to this kind of crap at a project that acts with impunity and zero regard for content creators. I'm sorry, but what you just did, and the attitude that you brought, is exactly the kind of problems that is endemic at commons, and which makes good editors despise that project. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something needs attribution or not can only be verified if the underlying work is properly sourced, which was not the case. Public domain works require attribution in most countries in the world. File:Australian Languages.png lists "Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development" by R. M. W. Dixon as a source, but it is not clear exactly what information the uploader has incorporated from the book or if there is anything which violates the author's copyright. If something violates the copyright of R. M. W. Dixon, then both the original map and this map need to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't much care for keeping files locally but consensus is to respect the author's wishes. The nominator may not have been aware of that. That being said, Vanisaac needs to tone it down a notch. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a file's copyright status isn't properly marked up; the only reason Commons has any worth at all as a free image repository is that they're (in theory, anyway) stricter about that than this project. Commons content is re-used all over the world, even on non-Wikimedia projects. We'd be doing people a disservice if we weren't careful. Yes this file is free. Yes it's derived from a public domain work. And now that it's been properly updated, everyone else knows that without having to go looking. Why this became so unfriendly is quite beyond me. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it extremely bad faith to nominate an article as a commons duplicate when it's been tagged ((keep local)). When the nom acted with malice (check out the archives at Kwami's talk page for the prelude conversation) and bad faith, I'm going to call him/her on it. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: keep. Issue raised in nomination is resolved. If there is another reason to delete please renominate. Chick Bowen 19:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Curve-Rare and Unreleased.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deepblue1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The image violates the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it: Moved to its own article Rare and Unreleased. Deepblue1 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo Kutter Swiss Wheels.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Egodlove (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Historic photograph, tagged as non-free, of a person working in a cheese factory in the mid-20th century. Could easily be covered with a verbal description; NFCC#8 violation (if it is really non-free). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person working with the cheese wheel is the original founder of the company giving the image creditability and relevance.Fortunate4now (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Fut.Perf. it's use fails WP:NFCC#8 I suspect that the image was never published at the time so probably is in copyright due to those rules, however could also probably fail WP:NFCC#4 as it is taken from the company archives - is there evidence of previous publication ? LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 11:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Image is taken from company's website and is presumed under copyright unless established otherwise. It is difficult to see how a random image of the founder at work contributes significantly to a reader's understanding of the business. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CerebralNeocortexMigrationInDevelopment.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thenerdypengwin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

As a non-free diagram with no explanation as to how it meets WP:NFCC#1. It seems like it would be a fairly simple job to create a free diagram which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. 137.43.188.79 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Though I believe there is a significant possibility that this is public domain, the burden of proof lies always on those claiming that an image is PD, not those claiming that it is not. If it cannot be established conclusively to be PD, it is not free for our purposes. However, this deletion does not prevent further discussion of or research into the underlying issues. That discussion can take place at Commons. Chick Bowen 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe-Fortes.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coffeerob (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: This 2013 Canadian stamp is copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. The image fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The fact that a stamp was issued to memorialise the subject is already well explained in the prose, so it is used as decoration in Joe Fortes that already shows an image of the subject and unnecessary for the reader's understanding that such a stamp was issued. ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates only mentions the copyright status in Canada. Wikipedia only cares about the USA law which says that it is protected for 95 years, not 50 years. Additionally, there is a textual replacement of the image in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep I disagree… Wikipedia says that the page is part of the biography project to help develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people… Having a stamp made in his name and having it shown will help expand the usage. Also links to newspaper articles and news releases may not be preserved. Which is why I uploaded it to Wikipedia. But if it doesn't fit your licensing then that is a larger issue then I am able to involve myself in… Coffeerob (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but as fairly new editor it may be difficult to get your head around our non-free policy but it is much more restrictive that the legal fair-use you may be used to. All such images must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines as well as WP:NFC#Images, specificially #3. Please read the specific links I provided for the deletion nomination carefully and you may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of some of the issues involved. ww2censor (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8, prose can explain the fact a stamp was issued. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 11:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons. I don't think it passes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:TOO#Canada so Canada can't copyright it. It is just one public domain image on top of another public domain image. Upload it over their an slap a deletion discussion tag on it. They should let it survive as no 'sweat of the brow' to claim copyright.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Fortes died in 1922, so the photo of him is in the public domain in Canada, since all photos taken before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. Sorry for missing this issue before. Is the photo in the background also in the public domain in Canada? That is, was the photo in the background taken before 1949?
  • USA has a copyright term of 120 year since creation for unpublished anonymous photos (or life+70 years for unpublished photos by identified photographers), and this applies to photos from any country, including photos from Canada. When were the photos taken, and have they been published before? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do is upload it to commmons and have the creator of the stamp image try and have it removed. I doubt she is the copyright holder or has permission to use the images if they are not in the public domain. I may go buy a few tomorrow in case our post office decides to recall them on copyright issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that we don't have any information about the history of the underlying photos, so we don't know whether ((PD-US-unpublished)), ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) or ((PD-URAA)) applies. If not, then the photographer's heirs can sue US reusers of the stamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This may need a broader discussion for inclusion of all articles that have stamps made in their honor. They are by far one of the rarest of accolades/awards/etc. Nobel prizes may be the only one rarer. Shouldn't we allow readers that don't get mail from Canada to see the stamp? We could put an external link to it but according to EL we shouldn't include such links if we can have the material in the article. I doubt Canada post would mind a fair use image because their stamp sales already went up because of the ones I just bought. When they sell stamps that aren't used they actually profit. I would assume many readers would do the same if they saw images of the stamps here first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed many time previously on stamp deletion nominations and unless a non-free stamp complies with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines, they will not be kept. If you really can prove that all the stamp's content is in the public domain you should provide that information. I cannot find any information about the background image though the Joe Fortes image might be freely licenced. ON some of your other points, we don't really care about the profit motif of the postal administration issuing a stamp or if they would mind us using it under fair-use or not but as you no doubt well know our non-free fair use policy is far stricter than the usual legal fair-use doctrine. We cannot assume readers will buy stamps from a postal administration having seem their non-free stamps displayed on Wikipedia. Our purpose is to be a free, as in free content, encyclopaedia not a promotional tool to help sell stamps. What makes this stamp so special that we should use a non-free image in a biography, contrary to policy, unless you prove it is in the public domain? The reader's understanding that a stamp was issued to honour the subject can be well made in prose without use of the non-free image so fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it from the artist: 'Minja notes that “it was important to show him in context, standing in the forefront of the stamp with English Bay, circa 1919, well-protected, so to speak, behind him.” From here, last line.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the main image of Mr. Fortes was photgraphed by Philip Timms (d. 1973). Although it is public domain in Canada do we still need to prove a publication date earlier than 1949 to host it on US servers for commons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to prove at least one of the following:

1. No publication at all before 2003 and taken by an identified photographer who died before 1943: ((PD-US-unpublished))
2. Publication before 1923: ((PD-1923))
3. Publication in 1923: ((PD-URAA))
4. Publication at any point between 1924 and 1989 without fully complying with US copyright formalities (copyright notice et cetera): ((PD-URAA))

Not sure how we usually do with these requirements. There seem to be quite a lot of files with ((PD-Canada)) and other non-US photo licences without any indication of publication. Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((PD-Canada)) states they are PD in the US "if it entered the public domain in Canada prior to 1996" 1996 - 50 years = 1946. Wouldn't that make any image created before 1946 in Canada PD in the US then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one thing. It says that it can only be in the public domain in the United States if it entered the public domain in Canada before 1996 or (implicitly) if it was published before 1923. It doesn't say that it always is in the public domain in the United States if it entered the public domain in Canada before 1996. ((PD-US-unpublished)) applies to each and every unpublished work regardless of the country of origin (see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104#(a) Unpublished Works.: "The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author."). Also see Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyrights: if published, it could be protected by copyright in the United States because of the statements on that page. However, if published before 1989, I think that it would be very unlikely that it is still protected by copyright in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a copy of the original photo in the British Library's Canadian Copyright collection (copyright no. 41838), which our copyright people are fairly sure is now in the public domain; it should be uploaded to Commons as part of our digitisation program sometime in the next couple of months. If people would like me to dig it out and put it up, so we can replace the stamp with it, please shout and I'll rush it through this weekend :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do I verify that the image is kept at the British Library? In any case, a copyright statement from the British Library probably only takes the copyright status in the United Kingdom into consideration, meaning that it says nothing about the copyright status in the United States. We already know that this photo is in the public domain in the United Kingdom since the United Kingdom applies the rule of the shorter term for Canadian photos, whereas the United States does not. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.