Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 5

File:Bathers with a turtle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lithoderm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, SLAM claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 00:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, this painting is the subject of its own page where the image is irreplaceable and illustrative (too many artwork nominations at once of major artists such as Matisse and Derain, please limit your noms, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are some odd quirks that come from the "publication" rule, and I believe the nominator is correct to question these images. There are definitely instances where a work this old can still be copyrighted in the United States. It's not super common, but it can happen, mostly when it comes to works first published outside the U.S., and usually only in select American states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit (you can read more here). Unfortunately, because WikiMedia's HQ is in California, that means all US WikiMedia entities are also subject to the 9th circuit's ruling. So to prove that these works can stay, someone would need to find the first instances of their publication abroad and/or in the U.S. If you check the Hirtle chart, I believe this work and the other Matisse paintings Lithoderm nominated would be categorized under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations" in the first "Special Cases" example ("1 July 1909 through 1978"). I would note that these deletion requests may seem a bit overwrought, but the nominator is not incorrect to point out the issue. Les Héritiers Matisse (the legal managers of Matisse's estate) still claim copyright over basically everything Matisse made and they're represented by the Artists Rights Society on U.S. copyright issues, so they clearly care about their copyright. Obviously they're probably just making broad claims to preserve (read: profit off) as much intellectual property as they can and ward off would-be re-users of the artworks, but they could definitely be right about any number of the works. I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if these images were kept. But without proof, we can't know for sure that these would pass legal muster as public domain in the (entire) United States. They can always be re-uploaded as non-free fair use images if need be. - 19h00s (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1910 by a German collector and then on public display for three decades, is what the SLAM page says. Felix QW (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derain - Portrait of a Man with a Newspaper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fentener van Vlissingen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this early-20th century painting is non-controversial and used on the artists' page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)ad[reply]
• Comment This is also from Russian state museums, and was apparently purchased by the museum from a Russian collector in 1918 ([1]). Felix QW (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1907, Vladimir Becic, Akt djevojke kod stola, ulje, Moderna galerija Zagreb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prosfilaes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons' general opinion is here; publication can generally be assumed shortly after painting. Certainly when things like this leave copyright in their home country, I envision no problem uploading to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with that, not for works of fine art anyway. Unlike commercial photographers, fine artists often create works and keep them for themselves for an indefinite period. Without any evidence either way, I don't believe that a work of fine art can be considered contemporarily published beyond significant doubt. Felix QW (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the artist died in May, 1954, over 70 years ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert André - The Concert - Google Art Project.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dcoetzee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it was painted in 1903 and is now used on the artists' page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Acquired by the Phillips Collection, where it is still on display, in 1923 [2]. So if sale and exhibition are considered publication, then this should be counted published in 1923. Felix QW (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flor Contemplacion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toadboy123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

"File:Flor Contemlacion" is essentially a cropped and enlarged version of "File:Flor Contemplacion after arrest.jpg" and two non-free files providing essentially the same encylopedic information to readers aren't need per WP:NFCC#3a. The cropped version is currently being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of Flor Contemplacion while the uncropped "after arrest" version is being used in Flor Contemplacion#Background to arrest. The cropped file does appears to have been upload prior to the uncropped version, but the uncropped version does perhaps provide more context and is a true representation of the photo that was taken. For that reason, I think that the uncropped versoin is probably the one that should be kept except it source url doesn't appear to be working to allow for verification of WP:NFCC#4. Regardless of which of the two is kept, both aren't needed per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded the cropped version as a better quality version of the image that was on site for years, i guess you can remove the "after arrest" pic ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cropped version, discard other. The uncropped one is poor as an identification image which it is currently being used for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goldfish Matisse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soulbust (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) grendel|khan 08:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, this is a major painting by Matisse used on six articles, especially its own article where it is the illustrative lead image and thus is irreplaceable as the article's illustration. Aside from that, this is an artwork, created in 1912, and is in public domain in the United States where Wikipedia is published. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adding this as a comment since the legal analysis seems rather complex, but at least we have some history on this one: Bought in 1912 by a Russian collector and then on public display from 1918, according to the Impressionist gallery. Felix QW (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   Comment: Although converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, it's not a panacea given that the file is currently being used in six articles and on one user page. If converted to non-free, the file will need to be removed from the user page per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. That leaves the non-free uses in the six articles to be assessed since it shouldn't be assumed that adding a rationale for each use autoatically means the use is policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. The use in Goldfish (Matisse) seems OK per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, but it could be pretty hard to justify the other non-free uses. The non-free uses in "Fish", "Fish in culture" and "Goldfish" seem near impossible to justify and almost certainly would need to go. The use in "Henri Matisse and goldfish" might be justifiable, but there are other reperesentative free examples of the same subject matter being used which might mean this particular file is not needed. The same could be said for the use in Henri Matisse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henri Matisse - View of Notre Dame. Paris, quai Saint-Michel, spring 1914.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Olpl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 08:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is used as the non-replaceable image at its own article, per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to non-free For this one, it would be difficult to justify contemporary publication, as one of the MoMA curators wrote [3]:

  In fact, this is a painting that he didn’t exhibit until 1949, 35 years after it was made.

  Unless it emerges that this exhibition happens to have been in the US and did not pass the required formalities, I do not think we can say that this painting is in the public domain in the US. Felix QW (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   Comment: As I posted in the FFD thread right above this one, converting the file's licensing to non-free is worth discussing, but it also means the each of the individual eight uses of the file would need to be assessed. Since three of these uses are not in the article namespace, they fail WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files and the file will need to be removed from those pages. Of the remaining five uses (Color field, Museum of Modern Art, View of Notre-Dame, List of works by Henri Matisse and Henri Matisse), there doesn't seem any way to justify non-free use in "Color Field" given the broad scope of the subject matter and item #6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The same applies to the use in "Museum of Modern Art" with the added problem of WP:NFG. The use in the list articles has issues with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, and WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES since non-free content is, in principle, pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of lists or tables. That leaves the non-free uses in "View of Notre Dame" and "Henri Matisee". Using an non-free image of a painting file for primary identifiction purposes in a stand-alone article about said painting is almost certainly policy compliant, but using the same image in an article about the artist who painted the painting runs into problems with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, particularly since there are multiple free equivalent images being used in the article as representative examples of the artist's work and style. Simply posting things such as "convert to non-free" or "Please add a [non-]free use template to the article" isn't really helpful when the file being discussed is being used on multiple pages because not each of those particular uses is automatically non-free content use compliant just because a non-free use rationale is added for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the detailed analysis, Marchjuly! I was merely commenting on the copyright status and usually defer to the expertise of others regarding the eligibility for non-free use. I seemed to me that non-free use on its own article page is almost certainly fine and that therefore deletion is not a plausible outcome. However, I also concur that it will likely have to be removed from the other pages that it is used for, per your detailed rationale above. Felix QW (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HazbinHotel-Alastor.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious copyright-related information. Author/creator was listed as Vivienne Medrano, which is the creator of the show (Hazbin Hotel). However, following the fandom URL link provided by the uploader as the image source, the creator is “John write”, not Vivienne Medrano. Also, the description of the non-free image usage was “Promotional still of the character Alastor”, which seems odd, given it comes from Fandom and not the show nor the show creator. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator delete I'll freely admit this was a mistake on my part and I assumed it was a promotional still as per common for such subjects and not fan art. I do feel though the article in question needs a proper image, I may clean up a screenshot from the show for such purposes later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I've replaced the image per the above struck comment with a cleaned up screenshot, and adjusted the fair use rationale to reflect that as the source complete with a link to the video and a time stamp for additional verification. @WeatherWriter: I trust this will suffice now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]