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.
Project details have changed greatly, and thus the design of the buildings/towers will not be as what is shown in the picture. The designs were also deleted from their official website. Hence this fair-use image is no longer needed. Rehman02:17, 28 May 2017 (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 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 section this non-free logo is being used in does not discuss the logo at all. It does not add anything to the reader's understanding of their athletics department. It isn't being used as an identifier either (else it would probably be used in the infobox). Doesn't meet fair use standards. Delete. Majora (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This logo is not really adding enough to the article to justify being used under NFCC#8; the understanding of the article's topic would not really suffer if it were amiss. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 2 July 2017 (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 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.
Keep File is in the article where the change in set design is noted in 2015 season, file is licensed under fair use but was provided by the production company Rove Enterprises specifically licensed "for use on wikipedia" in the article, there are no commercial concerns or copyright issues with the use of the photograph in the article. Because the shows set is copyrighted and temporary there is no ability for a legal freely licensed image to ever be sourced. The provision of the set image was given at far greater resolutions than that being used after a bot down sampled it, that should really be restored. The email confirming permission with the images in the larger more detailgeneral ed resolution attached was submitted to OTRS at the time of receipt. Before you say they should just have released it under a free license that will never happen either its a commercial TV production Gnangarra06:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
its not trivial and the nomination was it wasnt discussed when it is.. The set defines the time period for long running shows, in this it also define a format change that saw the show shift to news footing from a chat show type format its this change that also is now the format that the NZ version uses. Gnangarra05:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This adds nothing. The article contains no specific statements and commentary about this specific image. All it says, "In June 2015, The Project set was replaced and updated." There is absolutely no further, sourced commentary about it. NFCC8 requires that a non-free image's presence "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is just decoration. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as there is neither significant sourced commentary about the image, nor significant sourced commentary about the set change which this is supposed to illustrate. -- Whpq (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2017 (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 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.
Violation of NFCC4, non-free image created by user (and thus not previously published). Violation of NFCC1, image can be created in such a way that it does not contain any non-free content. Violation of requirement of specific rationale for each usage (used in two additional articles than specified). ViperSnake151 Talk 05:32, 28 May 2017 (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 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.
Blatant violation of NFCC 1. Rationale claims the image was actually created and owned by the uploader, yet they refused to license it under a free license. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:48, 28 May 2017 (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 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.
Blatant violation of NFCC 1. Rationale claims the image was actually created and owned by the uploader, yet they refused to license it under a free license. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:49, 28 May 2017 (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 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.
Blatant violation of NFCC 1. Rationale claims the image was actually created and owned by the uploader, yet they refused to license it under a free license. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:50, 28 May 2017 (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 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.
Violates NFCC1 and 4. Image was created for a literary publication, hence our usage competes with its usage and thus is not fair use. Additionally, there is no reason given for why this must be illustrated with a non-free image. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:53, 28 May 2017 (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 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 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 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: no consensus. No consensus as to whether deletion is warranted per the NFCC; but the uploader may want to consider the relicensing suggestion by George Ho. Sandstein 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the uploader and it's quite possible I'm biased here because this image was very difficult to secure permission from the Japanese photographer to upload, but I have two main arguments for keeping the image. First, I believe that as an ensemble of material whose elements may individually be copyrighted (i.e. a product package and a certificate whose text is largely illegible), the effect is transformative. The image cannot realistically be used to supersede either of the largely unrelated copyrighted works, but rather the image serves as a depiction of a typical prize bundle - a completely different subject for which the photographic rights have already been secured (permission from the photographer is on file with OTRS). I may be able to re-locate the original grant of permission in my records if needed.
Secondly, and in the alternative (assuming that the image is not deemed transformative), I do think it contributes substantially to an understanding of the topic at the Satellaview article. The Satellaview was an early attempt by Nintendo to foster inter-player connectivity and this was primarily achieved via events, competitions, and prizes for players. The image of the prize bundle reveals details (e.g. design, format, and text of award certificate, example of the kind of prize, composition of the bundle as a whole, etc.) that would be either trite or overly specific to include in text, but that are nevertheless significant to a full understanding of this important facet of the Satellaview. As far as the use of the image at the Bemani Pocket article, I think the same FUR as is used for any other cover art would be appropriate, although if cover art alone is the purpose of the image there, a cropped version would serve the same purpose.
I've added FURs for both purposes for the present, but I would raise no objection to removing the image from the Bemani Pocket topic as soon as a superior image becomes available. -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but the award itself would have to be the subject of some kind of commentary in order to warrant a non-free image of it. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 says that an image needs contextual significance from the article's prose, such that it would be a detriment to the reader to not have a visualization of the award. But based on at least the current text, the purpose of the award could be understood with text without a non-free visualization. czar17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the award itself would have to be the subject of some kind of commentary in order to warrant a non-free image of it" - There is a subsection devoted to the topic at Satellaview#Events and prizes. I also agree with your assessment that this is an image of an award (i.e. a transformative image rather than a collage of small copyrighted images of the cover art and the possible logo on the certificate) but as I understand it this means that the copyright vests in the photographer who took the photo rather than in Nintendo and Konami. The same principle supports the characterization by photographers like User:Muband who uploaded the image of the Satellaview at the top of the page and User:Evan-Amos who uploaded the image of the SNES at the top of Super Nintendo Entertainment System of their images as free images rather than non-free. Since they are the photographic copyright holders they can license it as they see fit. In this case I'm 90% sure the photographer had granted me agency to license his photo at Wikipedia and I licensed it as a free image. The permission should be available at OTRS. I'll check my records, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the subsection is unsourced? There are two copyrights in your image—the photographer's (we would need OTRS in this case) and the award designer's (the company's). People take photos of other people's works all the time—if the image is derivative of another person's work, their copyright has to be considered as well. Photos of products like game consoles are different because like a hammer or a toaster, it has functional use (non-artistic), so their design is not protected in derivative works. czar18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article is unsourced, but that shouldn't suggest that none exist. I actually have a rather large number of sources in this topic which I have very slowly been translating with the intention of eventually overhauling the article. Sadly I will not be able to improve the article in time for a decision on the matter at hand. I hope we agree that if this is considered a transformative work then the only permissions that must be obtained are those of the photographer. I did check my records, by the way, and I remembered correctly that he had granted me agency to license it. If the image is instead regarded as a derivative work then all I can say is that I think it easily complies with the legal 4-part fair use test (noncommercial/nonprofit educational use, factual/encyclopedic use without meaningfully different ways to express the idea, full images in 320 × 240 pixels where 90% of the text is illegible and images unsuitable for reproduction, and with zero effect on the market), and more importantly that it meets WP:NFCC and that its omission would be detrimental to a full understanding of the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
License photo as CC 3.0 and then tag content as non-free – I added {{non-free fair use}} under Licensing. Remain in "Satellaview" article because it helps readers recognize the context discussed in the section, but remove from the other article, whose improvement is needed. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2017 (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 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 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 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.
Refferal as this, under a non-free license here, but is under a 'free-license' at Commons. Note Iit was my understanding there was an active trademark connected with this though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2017 (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 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 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 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.
No, PD-Italy only applies to photographs and screenshots, not to posters and illustrations, which are protected for 70 years since the death of their authors. --151.54.40.212 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (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 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.
Previously published elsewhere on the web [1] (meaning that the claimed date is false); no evidence that the uploader is the rights holder as claimed. HaeB (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2017 (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 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.
Previously published elsewhere on the web (e.g. [2] - scroll through the gallery), meaning that the claimed date is false. No evidence that the uploader is the author as claimed. HaeB (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2017 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Delete. Wikipedia certainly has no use for it. It is licensed as free, so it can be theoretically be transferred to Commons. In practice, however, it runs afoul of their c:COM:PCP and other licensing requirements. A proof of license is missing. And I have a hard time accepting the it is "normative and individual acts of government bodies and official translations thereof; or ideas and concepts; or works of folklore; or news, facts, information and data." —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2017 (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 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 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.
