Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 16

March 16

File:Flight Pattern Dance.jpeg

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn, with additional consensus to keep. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 20:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flight Pattern Dance.jpeg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I am not convinced that this meets NFCC 1 and 8. This is a recent event, so it's not inconceivable that some photographer could be persuaded to (or eventually release) a free version. Jay Cubby 02:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage performances like this have very strict photography policies during performances. If a patron took a photograph, that person would be escorted out of the theatre and asked to delete it. Furthermore, if an audience member had photographed the performance, it probably would not be in the public domain because the photographer does not own the copyright of the performance. This is similar to a photographer taking a photo of a movie at the cinema: the picture would still not be public domain if the movie was not public domain. Only employees of the Royal Ballet have been authorised to photograph the performance, who cannot release their photographs themselves because the Royal Ballet would own the copyright of any photograph they took while under contract with the RB. There have been no known public performances of this work. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Z1720. Hog Farm _talk 04:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Z1820 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Z1720. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Z1720. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my listing per above. Jay Cubby 18:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Z1720 Buffs (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2025 (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:LTrygggolf1.JPG

File:LTrygggolf1.JPG (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:LTrygggolf2.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to Fair Use. Having both an example and the detail of the art he was known for makes sense. It appears to be the only image in the article and meets NFCC. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could do with only #1, but I guess it depends how important the detail is. Jay Cubby 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the image is being used in the infobox in the article about the artwork itself, the use of a non-free media file of the piece must be accompanied by sourced critical commentary. ✗plicit 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on 05:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

CCTV footage, so this image is in the public domain. Jay Cubby 18:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is CCTV footage is debatable in the US and is generally considered so on Wikipedia due to a lack of a clear ruling. However, it makes sense to include this image in the article as it was the key piece of evidence that allowed the FBI to find the brothers who committed the bombing.~ Buffs (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright aside, this article is completely understandable without this image so if not PD I would say we should delete it. Sure it was important but you can just as well explain that in text. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons as it is PD. The CCTV debatable question was before the infamous monkey camera case and more recent AI copyright stuff, which involves the necessity of human authorship for copyright. Given recent and increasingly established precedent, there is no human authorship (and there was probably far more human authorship in the monkey case), so for the same reason as those monkey photos and American AI generation, PD. Also this article can be understood just as well without the image, so if it isn't PD it should be deleted. Sure, a key piece of evidence, but you can explain it in words just fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See the arguments for an earlier discussion of this file at WP:FFD/2024 May 8#File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2025 (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.