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.

The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is in the public domain per ((PD-automated)). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I don't think US copyright has been settled with respect to this kind of image and the fact someone created a template for such a license doesn't necessary mean much, other than someone created a template for such a license. Even the Wikipedia article referenced in the template states that US case law is untested on the matter. Of course, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources for any purpose, but being unclear means it's probably best to err on the side of caution and keep this file licensed as non-free. Of course, if you can cite specific US cases in which this came up and resulted in such footage being declared ineligible for copyright protection, please do so since that will help further assess the file's copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, given recent case law on AI requiring that, even if directed by a human, works created by machines are ineligible for copyright, I would consider that analogous to CCTV cameras. Further this follows the 2013 monkey copyright lawsuits, where even if the camera placement and direction was done by a human, the photo itself was snapped by a monkey - and it was ineligible for copyright. No human snapped this photo, or any CCTV photo. AI prompting has far more creative input than CCTV camera placement, which in 99% of cases is for purely utilitarian reasons, and that is ineligible.

  Under the law of the US, as exemplified by the AI laws and the monkey case, a work must be created by a human to qualify for copyright. This doesn’t qualify. In works where there is significant human alteration after the fact, that may be another story, but given the developments in AI and machine copyright I would think that carries over to similar stuff like this. Given case law around cases where a non human entity created a photo, even if supervised, have all resulted in ineligibility, unaltered CCTV photos are PD in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Previous discussion on this file: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 19 § File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since it's been a number of years since that PUF discussion took place, it's possible that things have change; however, thanks for providing that link and adding it to the file's talk page. It's helpful to know this has been discussed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Current discussion on this file: c:COM:VPC#CCTV screenshots and US copyright law.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't realize a different but similiar file was being currently over on Commons when I started the COM:VPC thread about this one. This is actually quite useful to know and pertinent to what's being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as non-free at least for now. Things can alway be revisted once established case law or a consensus over at Commons establishes this type of file is clearly PD and "PD-automated" works for these files. If this file's licesning is converted to "PD-automated at this time, there would really be no reason for the file to continue to be hosted locally on English Wikipedia. However, there's also really no point in moving the file to Commons if there's no clear consensus established there that these types of files (particularly one's originating in the US) are clearly OK to host. Relicensing and moving the file to Commons is pointless if there's a real chance it's going to end up being deleted there; similarly, relicensing this and continuing to host this locally as PD (perhaps even using ((Keep local)) or ((Do not move to Commons))) also seems counterproductive and pointless since "PD-automated" doesn't ever seem to have been intended to be used as a "local PD-USonly" type of license and compliance with US copyright law is what matters for local files. Therefore, it's seem the most prudent thing to do would be to continue treat this as non-free until more of the dust has settled. If this is kept as non-free and someone express concerns about whether it's use complies with WP:NFCC, then that could be discussed. That would also likely be more of a WP:NFCC#8 related argument (i.e. a more nuanced and WP:NFC#CS related argument), whereas this FFD requesting license converson seems to be more of a WP: NFCC#1 argument. At this time, I do think there's reasonable doubt as to whether WP:FREER is OK to invoke here and thus it's probably best (once again) to maintain the status quo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Status quo, keep as non-free. As stated in this discussion, this has never been tested in a US court. Given that, we should err on the side of caution. Also noting for the record that the non-free use of this image in Boston Marathon bombing is appropriate under WP:NFCC. -Fastily 00:17, 16 May 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tramp art frame with maker's photograph.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tramperguy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work. Needs permission from the photographer of the original picture in the frame (unless the image is in Public domain due to the age) Sreejith K (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+This is an antique frame with a historical image ca 1900. I am the photographer, and I uploaded the image. 108.50.210.104 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: There seem to be two issues here: (1) the copyright status of the photo and (2) the copyright status of the frame.
  If the focus of this photo is intended to be the photographed photo, and it turns out that this photo is no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason (e.g. ((PD-US)),((PD-US-unpublished)), ((PD-old-assumed))), then a frameless version of the image can probably be kept and even moved to Wikimedia Commons; however, it would be helpful if the uploader is able to provide more information about the photographed photo's provenance (e.g. who took the photographed photo, when it was taken and where it was taken). The copyright status of the frame, however, may be a bit more complicated to assess since decorative frames, in particular, can be eligible for copyright protection as explained in c:COM:FRAME due to their 3D characteristics. So, the easiest thing to do might be just to look for the same photographed photo minus the frame and then work from there. For reference, a 2D slavish reproduction (e.g. a simple photo) of a copyrighted work is generally not considered sufficient to generate a new copyright for the photo as explained in c:COM:2D copying; it's the fact the this is a photo of a framed photograph which is what's making it seem like a WP:Derivative work, and that's (at least in my opinion) the only thing making the uploader's photo eligible for copyright protection. So, take the frame out and then all that needs to be sorted is the copyright status of the photographed photo.
  Now, if the frame itself is actually the intended subject of the photo (which might be the case given the file's use in Tramp art), then photographed photo isn'tt really necessary and can be cropped out if it turns out to not be within the public domain. It's possible that the frame imagery could be treated as non-free (e.g. ((Non-free 3D art))) and relicensed as such if it's use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but I'm not sure about that. In that case, though, the license for the photo would need to remain as is, and a non-free license and corresponding non-free use rationale would need to be added to the file's page for the frame. The main problems with any non-free image of "tramp art" would WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. A non-free image isn't likely going to be allowed as a reperesentative image of "tramp art" if it's reasonable to expect that a free equivalent image serving essentially the same enccyclopedic purpose as the non-free can either be found or created. This free image could be a really old image of an example of "tramp art" which is no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason, or it could be newly taken image in which the photographer and tramp artist agree to release their works under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough the extra "t" in "isn'tt" and the extra "c" in "enccylopedic". -- 01:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)][reply]

  I believe the claim is that both the frame and the photograph inside it are sufficiently old to be out of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly per the excellent analysis provided by Marchjuly. We don't have any verifiable info from a reliable source explicitly describing the frame & image to as PD. I also performed some cursory research on this topic and came up empty handed. This image isn't eligible for fair use either, given that free alternatives probably exist (fails WP:NFCC#1) and that upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage (fails WP:NFCC#8. -Fastily 00:16, 17 May 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zhaofeng Li (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The sample is not used to enhance discussion about the song's production or lyrics. There is no critical commentary supporting the sample and therefore it fails WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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.