Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 6

June 6

File:Carcross Desert Sign.JPG

This is an image of a sign with significant text. Although the image is under a free license, the text of the sign is not. De minimis does not apply as the main subject of the photo is the sign. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sign has been in place for >50 years and ~~is, in effect,~~ a government publication of ~~Canada and/or~~ its provinces (edit: add. It was published by Yukon, see lower right corner). As such, it's PD; mark accordingly. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the 50 years from? -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that amount of text 'significant', as it's a basic description of text. Jay Cubby 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png

File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This file was marked as fair use with URAA restored copyright. But because this image was published in 1929 and URAA copyright expired, that means that it’s now in US PD and can be moved to Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Net 25 Logo 2023.webp

Relicense to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|the Philippines}}. Under US law, this is not copyrightable as not a creative logo. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 11#File:Kalinga Partylist.png for similar reason (English Wikipedia is not bound to comply with restrictive and not Wikimedia-friendly PH copyright law). The deleted high-resolution file must be restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google books screenshot.png

The text is PD, descriptions are ineligible, and the icons are simple. Not sure this is above TOO Jay Cubby 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LiteSpeed Web Server Logo.png

The logo is not detailed enough to be above TOO. See the official SVG version for a clearer image Jay Cubby 23:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love is in the Air 1992 by JPY.jpg

A month back, uploader mistook caption notice as a PROD tag and attempted removal of the caption (diff) just because the cover art is the notable / official artwork from the 1992 re-release. The file was then de-PRODded by another editor just because it's still "used". I appreciate identifying the specific (re-)release, but I'm unconvinced that this cover art is necessary and contextually significant to the song in question.

Indeed, the song is a mid-1970s disco hit by an Aussie singer. Well, the 1992 remix of the old classic was also a hit in several nations, like major ones in Oceania. Nonetheless, besides (merely?) identifying the release, I can't help wonder why deleting this cover art would impact the understanding of the original version... and the remix itself. Just by reading the whole article, readers would already understand the hit disco song and its remix version used in a film, right? George Ho (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The remix over 2 decades later made the top ten in 3 major western countries. It's notable enough on its own to have an article by itself which would make an image like this appropriate. Putting them together makes sense too. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amen break notation (local copy).svg

This file has two problems. It is {{C-uploaded}} but it should have been F8 speedied as soon as they are off the Main Page. Most importantly, it was deleted from Commons as being copyrighted and we have no non-free use rationale:

File:Amen break notation.svg
This file was initially tagged by MIDI as fair use and the most recent rationale was: Transcription of a copyrighted composition. Propose re-upload to appropriate projects with (for example) Wikipedia:Template:Non-free sheet music Quick1984 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

209.227.161.66 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't remember any of the details of why I uploaded this, but I don't have any objections to it being deleted. RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure on this, but might it be short enough to be deemed uncopyrightable? Then again, the Commons version was deleted. Jay Cubby 14:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll be blunt, this isn't copyrighted. It's too simple (in musical terms). Just 4 measures. Likewise, it has been sampled and uncontested. Its copyright was not asserted prior to 1989 despite its use in other music. [1]. This is PD and credit should certainly go to the author. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: what do you think about this? Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Bedivere. I'm not a musician @Ikan Kekek: but even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough. The article notes that the author of the song could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations. And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song. Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even short works can be copyrighted if they are creative enough I agree, but this is little more than a simple (repeated) drum line that has been used in countless samples without attribution. Given that this small drum line segment wasn't copyrighted at the time in 1969, it wouldn't attain its own copyright by itself any more than the color black could be copyrighted from Black Square.

And en:Amen break says that Richard Lewis Spencer is the copyright holder for the song Indeed he is the copyright holder for the song. I do not see any viable reference that says he owns the copyright to the break. Just because he "could not pursue legal action due to the statute of limitations" doesn't mean he had any case in the first place. It can also mean that even if it were copyrighted, there would be no legal recourse. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work. You are also correct that it is possible that courts would have ruled against him. It will be interesting to see what the copyright experts at Commons say about this. (I am largely going to sit out on the discussion on Commons). Abzeronow (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either this is PD, in which case the Commons version should be undeleted (which I've requested at c:COM:UDR) and the local version speedied as F8, or it's not and the local version should be deleted as a copyvio. There's no cause for a local copy to exist, either way, so we need not decide which is the case here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the Commons discussion was closed as "not done" and archived to c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-04 § File:Amen break notation.svg. It should be locally kept as {{non-free sheet music}} (or possibly PD, which is not absolutely excluded by Commons's decision, but I think they were correct in this case). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The file was never tagged with this discussion. Note that the file has been nominated for WP:F7.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case I wasn't clear before, this is only 4 measures (mostly a repetitive 2). The fact that the drum line has been sampled so many times could point to the drum line itself being a sufficiently creative work. The fact that it's been used unopposed lends credence to the fact that even its creators do not feel it's copyrighted. This is no different from quoting part of a phrase from a book. The whole work is copyrightable, not an individual phrase. Examples of things that are famous and portions of larger works, but are not copyrightable in and of themselves: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times", "Call me Ishmael", "To be or not to be, that is the question", etc. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments have almost entirely focused on the copyright status, and the file's restoration at Commons was not done. Can we address its use a non-free file and whether if satsifies WP:NFCC? It lacks a fair use rationale and will qualify for WP:CSD#F6 if unaddressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]