Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 1

November 1

File:Paskuhan Village Giant Lantern Tourist Information Center Lantern 9.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a giant lantern artwork, and is possibly unfree in the United States as a recent work of art. Commercial license from designer is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:30, 1 November 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:California Girls David.jpg

Cover art of subsequent recording by an artist unneeded. Doesn't contextually signify the ~~less successful~~ recording itself or the song previously recorded by a prior artist. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 19:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In re-reading, I realized that the recording charted well but in only one country so far. Yet to see the recording's global impact so far. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This file also fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) as it can be replaced with this label of the song's U.S. 7" vinyl single release sourced from Discogs. The depicted Warner Records logo is possibly in the public domain due to a lack of an accompanying copyright notice; and, if published after 1977, it would be in the public domain if it was not subsequently registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of publication. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Warner Records logo depicted on the single label debuted in 1973 without an attached copyright notice. It is therefore in the public domain due to formalities (and should be tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of variants of the Warner Bros. Records logo, most of them free to use and perceived as unoriginal enough for copyright protection, like a vinyl label of a 1950s release. Releases of 1973 are various: one of them has a background photo/artwork; another has just plain background used in early 1970s.

The David Lee Roth release (1985) has the logo variant glassier effect, and it's hard for me to consider the vinyl label out of copyright just because it lacks copyright notice and such omission wasn't corrected within the five-year window. Well, this logo variant was used earliest in 1979 (discogs)... or 1978 when two label variants were still used that same year (discogs). Must we consider that logo variant out of coypright in 1983/1984? George Ho (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found out on Logopedia that this logo was in use from 1973 to 1989. Even if the logo did debut in 1979, a search through the Copyright Office's records shows that it was not registered with the office before 1985 and would be in the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noggin-logo-commercials.png

From WP:NFG: "User-created montages containing non-free images should be avoided". There is a Logo and branding section in Noggin (brand) with critical commentary on the brand's logos. Also, the article has two non-free logos in the infobox but I couldn't find a guideline on if that is appropriate. Commander Keane (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Houston MyLoveIsYourLove.ogg

Sample's ability to contextually signify the song and the whole album still questionable, despite the de-PRODding two years ago. Demonstrating the song ≠ "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the song article. The article had critical commentary that even the nominator admitted to when they prodded it two years ago, it had critical commentary when I removed the prod and it still has critical commentary now that it is nominated for discussion to justify its inclusion in the article, thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]