Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 3 - Wikipedia

Article Images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is marked {{KeepLocal}} because it is trademarked. But this is confused: Commons hosts trademarked items but not copyrighted items; there is a substantial difference. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing trademarks and copyrights is a common thing, I see. Probably just another case of it, and the logo already exists on Commons. I trust that the logo is not original enough to be copyrighted, yes? I tend to be very very prudent about PD-textlogo, probably unduly so.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’m no expert in the legality of these things, but like the tags indicate, there’s not enough originality for the logo to be copyrighted, and the logo is trademarked. If it's already it Commons, then it probably should be removed from the English Wikipedia. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 ⚡ 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another user placed a speedy deletion tag claiming it was "non reduced quality" audio. It was not a valid reason for speedy deletion and I have declined speedy deletion. But, as I am not really familiar with the requirements for audio files, I will take to discussion so editors more experienced in the area can review the file. Also, standardized Fair use rationale templates are needed. Information is provided, but in a non standardized form. Safiel (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The length is fine. I don't know if the sound quality is fine.

The fair use rationale contains several errors and is currently not in compliance with WP:NFCC#10c:

It illustrates an educational article specifically about the song from which this sample was taken. This statement is sufficient documentation that the file meets WP:NFCC#8 in the article for which the FUR was written. However, WP:NFCC#10c requires you to specifically name the article, and no article is named. Additionally, the file is not used in an article about a song but in an article about a band, so the entire sentence is wrong. It may be acceptable to include a sound recording in the article, but the correct purpose needs to be stated in the fair use rationale, and the article needs to be named.
It is a sample of no more than 30 seconds from a much longer recording, and could not be used as a substitute for the original commercial recording or to recreate the original recording. This part of the FUR looks good: the uploader notes that the file is of reduced quality because it is no more than 30 seconds and claims that it therefore satisfies WP:NFCC#3b. Someone is disputing whether the file is small enough, and that's another question.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value. WP:FUR says that When non-free media are used on Wikipedia, a justification for their usage, [...], must be presented in the image description page, explaining how the image is used in a way consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The uploader asserts that the file is not replaceable (and thus compliant with WP:NFCC#1), but WP:FUR requires the uploader to explain why the file meets WP:NFCC#1. It is a common error by users who do not use templated FURs to assert that a file meets a criterion without explaining why. Because of this error, the FUR is currently invalid.
It is believed that this sample will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original recording. Same problem as the above: the uploader states that the file meets WP:NFCC#2, but does not state why the file meets WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]