June 9

File:Hoe Kah Hong.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoe Kah Hong may have been one of perpetrators of the Toa Payoh ritual murders, but I can't help wonder whether the image (of this person) is needed to help readers understand such murders. If not, then the image itself may not be contextually significant after all. George Ho (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (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.

File:Darin and Sheila Damude.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 04:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image of two victims may neither improve understanding of the criminal nor be contextually significant to the person in question. I don't see how omitting this image would affect the understanding, honestly. George Ho (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thats your opinion, however i would prefer to leave it as is 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker: Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be memorials and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally requires a strong contextual connection between non-free image use and article content per WP:NFC#CS. Of course, being a victim of a crime is a strong connection, but it isn't always one that requires actually seeing a non-free image of the victim to understand they were a victim. Is there something about the Dammudes physical appearances which is directly related to why they were a crime victim or is the photo just show what they looked like. If the main argument for non-free use is the latter, then I don't see how the use isn't WP:DECORATIVE and thus agree with George Ho's assessment above. If any sourced critical commentary related the victims' physical appearances can be found and added to the article that shows their physical appearances was directly connected to the crime, then that would make a stronger case for non-free use than thats your opinion, however i would prefer to leave it as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  how about "This file is in the public domain because copyright of the typographical arrangement of this edition expired in Singapore (2021 Act) after twenty-five years of its first publication." for a reason then ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a photo of victims, not a hotel bill. Copyright still applies. George Ho (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker: The file was uploaded as non-free content and what has been posted above is related to the file's non-free use. Of course, if the photo can be clearly shown to be within the public domain in its country of first publication (which could be Singapore or Canada) and the United States, the file's licensing can be converted to a suitable PD license and its use would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In that case, though, there's even no reason for the file to be on English Wikipedia and it can be moved to Wikimedia Commons. There does, however, need to be a clear reason why the file is PD. c:COM:Singapore currently states that photos taken after April 10, 1987, become PD 70 years after the calender year in which they were first published. So, if the photo was first published in 1995, it will not be PD until 2066. If Copyright Act of 2021 has somehow changed the way photos are treated under Singaporian copyright law, then please provide information as to how and if possible a link to some official website or court ruling showing that this is the case. Further complicating matters is that the photo is described as being owned by the Damude family. The Dalmudes were from Canada and were only on vacation in Thailand when they were killed. That could mean the photo is subject to Canadian copyright law. Per c:COM:Canada photos taken after January 1, 1949, are, in principle, protected for 70 years p.m.a, and this would likely means there quite some time to go before the photo would be PD under Canadian copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  hhhmmmm its a bit of a pickle alrite, maybe we should leave it on site unless and until who ever has a legitimate claim actual asks for it to be taken down ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not really how Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or image use policy works. The burden falls upon you as the file's uploader to establish a consensus in favor of non-free use. The default isn't to wait until someone complains per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NEVERSUE. So, if neither you nor anyone else is unable to establish either a consensus in favor of the file's non-free use or a consensus that photo is actually within the public domain, then the file will likely end up deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover of "Handbook of Software Fault Localization".jpg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this book cover qualifies for ((PD-text)) but asking for a second opinion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the book cover, I focus on the minimalist, elegance, and grid-based aspects of modern graphic design. It attracts readers to the red, broken “Fault” and the mouse pointer that portrays “Localization”. The effect was found to be striking and far from “not original”. The design was thoroughly reviewed and well accepted by the editorial and artwork teams in Wiley Press. I signed an agreement allowing Wiley-IEEE Press to use the cover design in Handbook of Software Fault Localization, but I have retained the copyright. Hence, the following Wiki condition is not applicable: “This image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the image is considered to be in the public domain.” -- T.H. Tse as Thtse2020 (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in releasing the cover under a free license? Then we could definitely display it in high resolution, and on other languages of Wikipedia that don't allow fair use. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if non-free or Convert to PD if PD-logo: Any agreement the cover's designer signed with their publishing company isn't really relevant if the book is considered with in the public domain under US copyright law, and it would between those two parties and not include Wikipedia. If the cover art was registered for copyright in the US or its country of first publication (which in this cases also seems to be the US) by either the book's cover designer or the book's publisher and that registration was approved, then this should be treated as non-free content. It's use as non-free content in T.H. Tse, however, clearly fails Wikipedia's non-free use content policy in my opinion per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFCC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3) and the file should be deleted if it stays non-free. On the other hand, if the consensus is the file is too simple for copyright protection absent any such formal verification of registration to the contrary, the file should be converted to ((PD-logo)) and tagged for a move to Commons. In that case it would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but it's use might still be deemed somewhat promotion given that the file's uploaded also seems to be the author of the book/cover art designer. Usage of the file under a PD license, however, is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, and it would be better for the uploader to remove the file themselves and instead propose adding it by starting a discussion about it at Talk:T.H. Tse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to donating the cover design to Wikipedia under a free license. But please make life easier for me by not citing all kinds of rules that I do not understand and have no time to find out. -- T.H. Tse as Thtse2020 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're claiming sole copyright authorship over the book's cover art, all you need to do follow the instructions given at WP:DONATEIMAGE. There are basically two ways to donate your image: (1) send a WP:CONSENT email to the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team or (2) release the image somewhere online (e.g. your official website) under an acceptable free license. If you do (1), you should use an official email address (if you have one) because this aids VRT members in the verification of your copyright ownership. The email doesn't have to use the exact wording of the CONSENT template, but it's better to not deviate too much from it because the boilerplate text covers all of the important stuff. If you do (2), the site where you post the image should be clearly one that you control (e.g. your official website) because this too can aid in verifying copyright ownership. You might still be asked to do (1), if the online image seems questionable or a direct connection to you is unclear. You should also understand that the word "donating" can mean slightly different things depending upon the type of license you choose. If you choose a license that releases the file you upload into the public domain (e.g. ((PD-self)), ((PD-author)), ((CC0))) you're basically waiving all claim of copyright ownership over the cover art; if you choose a little more restrictive license (e.g. ((CC-BY-SA-4.0))), you're making the file you upload freely available for others to use with minimal restriction, but you're still retaining copyright ownership over it. The type of license you choose is entirely up to you as the sole copyright holder, but be advised that any type of license that places restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use is not going to be considered "free" enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Similarly, any license that tries to restrict re-use to "Wikipedia only" is not going to be free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Please note that copyright and trademark are different concepts and Wikipedia is only really concerned about the former; so, donating your file doesn't mean you can't trademark the file. Anyway, my suggestion to you would be to take a look at this for an brief explanation of the differences between the various Creative Commons licenses because such licenses are non-revocable in principle. Some other pages you might want to look at are c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and c:Commons:Enforcing license terms; those are Wikimedia Commons pages but the content they contain pretty much also applies to Wikipedia files uploaded under acceptable free licenses. Finally, it's great if you want to donate this image, but that still won't 100% guarantee that the book cover art will be always used in the Wikipedia article written about you. While image use on Wikipedia largely depends on copyright status, it also depends on encyclopedic relevance as explained in WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. There should be no problem with the image being used, but someone could contest that usage at some point and start a discussion about it; it will then be left up to WP:CONSENSUS to figure out what to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby affirm that I, T.H. Tse, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:"Handbook_of_Software_Fault_Localization".jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. T.H. Tse 2023-06-16 [generated using relgen] -- Thtse2020 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct Wikipedia Commons URL is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cover_of_%22Handbook_of_Software_Fault_Localization%22.jpg -- T.H. Tse as Thtse2020 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]