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: remove from Normie Rowe. ℯxplicit 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:S658072.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rusty201 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free cover art being used in Normie Rowe#Sixties stardom: 1965–1966 and Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)#Normie Rowe. Non-free cover art is generally allowed per item 1 of WP:NFCI when it serves as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the song/album in question. However, a much stronger justification for non-free use is typically required when the the cover art is used in other ways or in other articles as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. While it's true that this was a big hit for Rowe, the reader does not need to see this cover art to understand anything written about the song in the Rowe article; moreover, the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the Rowe article, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. The use in the song article is problematic because Rowe's version is a cover version, so once again it is not the primary topic of the article. If Rowe's version was notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NSONG, then using the cover art for indentification might be acceptable; that does not seem to be the case and cover art is once again not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article about the main song. Another problem with this file's use is that it does not really have the seperate specific non-free use rationales it needs for each use as required by WP:NFCC#10c. There is a general statement regarding "fair use", but some more specific is needed for each use to show how said use meets all 10 non-free content criteria for each of the uses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) since Rowe's version is a notable cover version that would have its own article per WP:NSONG. Remove from Normie Rowe for not lacking critical commentary. Aspects (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Same opinions as Aspects's. Also, the file name should be renamed to "File:Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) by Normie Rowe Australian vinyl.jpg". George Ho (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) as has context as article is about the song, it has fair use rationale just not perfectly formatted. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2017 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:En-wodr.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexkillby (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Spoken version of an article from 2005, when the article was one line long. It's now a lengthy article and the spoken version isn't useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2017 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1#File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png. ℯxplicit 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anarchyte (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Being a malware does not disqualify this software from copyright protection Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi.

First, is it a deletion proposal?

Second, the reason why I think this image is not eligible for copyright protection is already on the image description page's Permission field. But I'd like to hear about your version of a world in which malware is copyright-protected. Are people who get infected with malware arrested for unlicnesed software use? Or are they considered licensees? Or are they infected under the auspices of fair use? How about the antivirus companies that reverse-engineer malware? Are they in violation of Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)? DMCA neither accounts for fair use nor has a scienter requirement. It means if malware is protected by DMCA, a person can get arrested for getting infected by it, even if he or she does not know that he or she is infected by it.

Best regards,
11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all they might not sue under DMCA but still like a video game it's copyrighted even as a screenshot Flow 234 (Nina) talk 15:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you create malware and create a distribution system which installs the malware on random computers, then I'd imagine that you indirectly give the owners of those computers a licence to use your malware. In other words, those who have been attacked are not using an unlicensed copy of the malware but a licensed copy of the malware.

Antivirus companies: Sounds interesting. Section 107 begins with the words Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, so does fair use only exempt you from the protection given by section 106 (economic rights) and 106A (moral rights) but not from, for example, section 1201 (additional moral rights)? However, I'd argue that antivirus companies are allowed to create antivirus software based on section 1201 (f) (1):

“

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

”

The antivirus company has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of the malware. The antivirus company wants to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program (the antivirus program) with other programs (malware). If this interoperability is achieved, then the antivirus program uninstalls the malware. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have no comment on the copyright, but if it doesn't fall into the public domain, then simply re-add the non-free template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retag as non-free Copyrighted text. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you justify ignoring ex turpi causa non oritur actio? If the country of origin's copyright laws are not protecting this image, how does U.S.? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ex turpi causa non oritur actio seems to be about the relationship between the victim and the culprit. As far as I am aware, the file's presence on Wikipedia is not related to an attack made against Wikipedia – Wikipedia seems to be a neutral party. I'd say that the ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine only exempts the victims of the attack (and those who assist the victims, such as antivirus companies) from any copyright infringement liability, and only insofar as the copyright infringement is sufficiently related to the attack. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am afraid you are wrong on three grounds: (1) First, per Title 18 of U.S. Code, Chapter 113B, when a person targets the whole public, Wikipedia, which part of it, is the intended victim, even if it was not affected. (2) This image was published by an intended victim. (3) The ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine also applies to copyright. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2017 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1#File:Sandmankieth.png. ℯxplicit 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandmankieth.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Invalid NFUR: there is already non-free media on this page and this particular scan is not use for any critical commentary or educational purpose. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Argento Surfer:

Thanks for the ping. The image is the only representation of the comic's interior art, which is vastly different from the cover shown in the infobox. I have added a publication history section that discusses Kieth's style. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (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: convert to fair use. ℯxplicit 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayte (137).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gokus Girl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyrighted album cover, ineligible to be licensed under Creative Commons. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly a fair use image. I have added a fair use and changed the licensing to non-free album cover. Discussion should be good to be closed now. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (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.