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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abog ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is currenlty being used Northern Illinois University shooting#Vigils and memorial services and has been tagged for a move to Commons since 2011; however,I think that there are some issues that first need to be resolved before such a move is done.The first has to do with whether this file is 100% or whether it actually should be treated as non-free content. Some discussion on this took place at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/February#File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG, but it's not clear whether anything was resolved. This photo is (at least in my opinion) a WP:Derivative work because it is a photo of video feed of an event. It seems that basically this is sort of a screen capture of a speaker at an event, which means (again in my opinion) that there are two copyrights that need to be considered: one for the photo and one for the video feed. The photographer/uploader holds the copyright over the photo, but not necessarily the video feed. So, if the consensus is that this is such a derivative work, it would need to be relicensed as non-free content (most likely at {{ Non-free video screenshot}}) with a non-free use rationale provided for each use per WP:NFCC#10c.That leads to the second question: would the way the file is being used currently meet WP:NFCCP? Simply adding a non-free use rationale would not make the file's non-free use acceptable per WP:JUSTONE; there are other issues with WP:NFCC#1 ( WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#CS) that need to be assessed. While the president of a university speaking an event (particularly one about a shooting) would seem to be worth mentioning in an article about the shooting, seeing a screenshot of the president making said speech is not necessarily needed unless there's some specific reason why (e.g. sourced critical commentary about the screenshot itself) that not seeing the screenshot would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. If the point of the image is to simply illustrate a section about the speech, then that type of non-free use is likely more WP:DECORATIVE than not and the file should probbaly be deleted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Taking an image of a video feed doesn't transfer rights held by the copyright holder of the video feed to the photographer of the video feed. This is clearly a derivative work. If it were de minimis to a larger image ( this comes to mind), then fine, but that isn't the case here. It would be the same as someone taping a broadcast of a show, and then releasing the show under a free license, claiming that this invalidates the copyrights of the company that produced the show. It doesn't work that way. Thus, it's non-free. Secondly; how does the image satisfying WP:NFCC #8? It's not mentioned in the prose, nor is there any mention of Peters talking at any memorial service or vigil. Thus, the image is completely superfluous to the prose and merely decorative. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:34, 15 March 2021 (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 result of the discussion was: Relicense to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} - FASTILY 22:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 292Jacob ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free media, SVG with unknown source uploaded by new user that replaced existing file File:DFM logo.png (edit: the png file itself had problem but now fixed 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)).

According to Wikipedia:Non-free content "If an editor bases a vectorisation they did by themself from a free image, they should indicate the source image so that freeness can be confirmed, and release their contribution (the labour of converting to vectors) under a free license to help with the aforementioned ambiguity." But the file uploaded by the new user has no source info at all. Matthew hk ( talk) 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: a non-free file is required to have a source per WP:NFCC#10a and those that don't can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4; however, often when a non-free file is missing a source it's because the uploader is someone not very familiar with files and the source is left out simply because the editor doesn't know any better. In many such cases, the source for the file can be found with a little digging. For this logo, one possible source can be seen at www.dfmc.com.cn; so, if the only problem with the file is that it was "missing" a source, then that can be easily remedied by adding a link to the company's website to the file's non-free use rationale. If the problem is that the file is an svg (as explained in WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions, then that might mean the file needs to be deleted. In this case though the logo is rather simple; so, the vectorization probably isn't too big of an issue. The logo might even be OK to relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on English Wikipedia per c:COM:TOO United States even if it's considered complex enough to be eligible under Chinese copyright law per c:COM:TOO China. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The official site clearly not using svg.... Matthew hk ( talk) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Is there any significant difference between the png and svg versions? If there isn't, then the svg might be OK even though I personally think the png should be used per WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions; however, there are lots of editors who disagree with this and tend to follow WP:IUP#FORMAT even with respect to non-free logos. Lots of pngs have been converted to svgs in the past few years and this is probably not the right place for a general discussion on that. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep and relicense to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The shape is simple and Chinese characters are generally not copyrightable in the US ( example). Wikiacc ( ¶) 03:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep and relicense to {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} per the above. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 19 March 2021 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

File:JA897820201204 JTSB Fig 3.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dhaluza ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Work is actually CC 4.0 as under MLIT terms (see here) it is actually licensed under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Ver.2.0). Thus, I wish for the original uncropped image to be restored and the film to be moved to Commons and get properly tagged there. MSG17 ( talk) 23:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for looking up the terms. I tried to find this, and failed, so I used fair-use to be conservative. In general, we should not be automatically reducing quality of press release images--that actually goes against their intended use. Dhaluza ( talk) 08:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Non-free images are required to meet WP:NFCC#3b ( WP:IMAGERES) and they tend to be reduced when they do not; the use of non-free files needs to meet the WP:NFCCP regardless of what the intent of the original publisher might've been. Most of these reductions are done by bots run by editors with lots of experience in dealing with files; so, if someone feels an error has been made, they can discuss things with the bot operator. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I uploaded the original full resolution file to Commons with the same name. So this file can be deleted. Dhaluza ( talk) 00:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Great! I fixed the tag on the original Wikipedia file page, so now it should be speedily deleted as a dup of Commons. MSG17 ( talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • For future reference, if you come across a file which has been mistakenly licensed as non-free, you can be WP:BOLD and convert the licensing yourself or try and seek feedback at either WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. If you're bold and subsequently reverted, then starting a discussion at FFD would probably be a good idea. In the same context, older revisions of the file can almost always be restored via WP:REFUND without need to discuss things here at FFD. The administrator who reviews the REFUND request will most likely assess the license change you made and restore the non-free licensing if they disagree with the change; once again, only then it would probably best to seek consensus at FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Marchjuly: I agree that being BOLD is usually advisable in this context, but there's nothing wrong with coming to FFD. "NFCC applied to free image" is one of the reasons for discussion listed at the top of the page. Wikiacc ( ¶) 03:25, 18 March 2021 (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.