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.
I am not sure that the uploader (who has not been active for almost 10 years) really intends to claim they are the original author of this 1965 work, which will still be copyrighted in the US at least until 2060. Felix QW (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A brief Google search revealed that the image in question was quite possibly lifted from the one here, where it is under copyright, so the uploaders' claim of "own work" is dubious at best. FHSIG13TALK 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your find! The source you discovered actually indicates that the image is from 1886 and that the last author died in 1917. It is therefore in the public domain in both the US and the UK. I uploaded a high-resolution copy to Commons at File:Jeypore Enamels Plate 1.jpg, so I believe this image can still be deleted. If a copy without the caption is required, it could easily be cropped from the new Commons version. Felix QW (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW Thank you very much for your additional research! Based on what you uncovered from the source I provided, as well as your Commons upload, I concur that the image in question can now be speedy deleted as F8. FHSIG13TALK 23:37, 22 March 2024 (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.
File:Palladiusrudenko.jpg
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.
This orphaned file seems to be (based on) a portrait of this subject, who died only in 1971. It is at least plausible that this image was first published in the Ukraine, and as Ukrainian copyright terms were 50 years at the URAA restoration date in 1996, it seems unlikely that this image is now PD in the US. Felix QW (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was an altered portrait from a photograph to adhere to fair use standards, but I don't understand your logic: 1971 was 53 years ago, and he was quite alive when it was taken. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! Do you have a specific source for the original photograph, or any further information about it? The issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation has its servers in the US, and that US copyright is 95 years from publication. The only exception is that US copyright is not restored for foreign-published material that happened to be in the public domain in the source country in 1996. WP:Non-US copyrights has more information about all of this. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google Lens search revealed that the image in question may have been lifted from the one here, where along with the entire contents of the site, it has been under copyright since 1951. The aforementioned site is also the only previous publication of a similar image online, so I'm not sure that the Public Domain claim will hold. FHSIG13TALK 23:52, 22 March 2024 (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.
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.
Image is irrelevant because the subject isn't mentioned in the page itself MillieRoberts03 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (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.
File:Palmer Preparatory School Campus, circa !973.jpg
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.
There is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder, that the copyright holder released this image into the public domain or that this image has ben published before 1979 without a copyright notice. It may be eligible for non-free use as a historic image, though. Felix QW (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (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.
File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg
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.
I originally nominated this for F7 under "replaceable fair use"; however it got disputed by the original uploader. My original rationale was Can be described using almost exclusively text., the reason for the dispute was The rationale "Can be described using almost exclusively text" is true for almost any non-free image on Wikipedia, and isn't a valid rationale. It is one thing to simply claim that CNN broadcasted the term "shithole countries" but it would be impossible to cite a verifiable source. The image accomplishes the verifiability requirement of any statement we make on Wikipedia about the topic, in a way that "exclusively in text" fails to do. I searched for a long time and could not find a free version of any image of a news service reporting this. Therefore, there is no suitable visual replacement for something that demonstrate's CNN's or any other news service's use of this phrase.. As gold as this image is in showing that cable news is not subject to FCC regulations, only OTA TV is; I am failing to see how this cannot be conveyed in text. I'd support editing to remove all but the headline then the image might be usable on Wikipedia with c:De minimis or c:Threshold of originality elements; and, failing that, deletion. AwesomeAasim 19:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As the uploader, I must say that the nominator's rationale strikes me as grasping for straws. The content of any image can be conveyed in text, depending on the image and how much text you're willing to use to convey it. The image in question is a valid and valuable demonstration of a key point made in the text, and as such, there is no free replacement image. The nominator's rationale could apply to any fair-use TV frame-capture on Wikipedia. We even have a Template:Non-free television screenshot exactly for the purpose I uploaded this (quoting directly from the template): "for identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contents" it "qualifies as fair use." What more needs to be said? Are we going to delete that template as being unusable now? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO CNN programming might be more useful in an article about CNN than an article about Seven dirty words. The image is a really good find. I am merely disagreeing that its use in Seven dirty words aligns with WP:NFCC. AwesomeAasim 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim: I didn't "find" the image, I took the picture myself. It was on a display monitor in our company cafeteria, and when this appeared in the CNN broadcast, it instigated immediate discussion among coworkers in the cafeteria, with comments like "wow, can they do that?" until someone pointed out that CNN doesn't broadcast over the air. So I took the picture, thinking it might be interesting to use on Wikipedia, because nobody could remember something like this ever being shown on a news channel, even a cable news channel. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I definitely don't think F7 applies here as there is definitely no free equivalent to be had or created, and while I also think that the arguments surrounding image content being conveyable by text alone are superseded by the existence of a fair-use template for non-free screen captures of television programs being used to provide the aforementioned critical commentary on the program and its' contents, I don't see enough of that sourced critical commentary in the article, to support this image being kept. FHSIG13TALK 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the image is illustrating non-broadcast stations not being subject to FCC obscenity guidelines. That can be done in words and doe snot need this non-free image to illustrate it. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Additonally, the image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary so fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC: there is no prose in this article requiring this NFC to be understood (#8), and since its purpose is seemingly to say "CNN once said 'shithole countries'", replace with that exact text and a citation (#1). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:10, 24 March 2024 (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.
