User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2023/May

Soviet Football Images

So currently, I've received notifications that two files I've uploaded (File:Valeri Zykov.jpg and File:Nikolay Kiselyov.jpg) are considered to be violations of WP:FREER due to possible free equivalents being found. Russian public domain laws are either that the author of each photo died before January 1, 1953 or if the photo was published before January 1, 1953. All photographs of both players have no known photograph before that date. Unless I'm missing something, that should generally be a good rationale as to why there aren't any free equivalents for either. As an additional note, I would've submitted this message in the file talk page but since I'm dealing with two files, I decided to create a new section on your talk page. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC as explained in WP:FREER and item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI. If you feel the file's are within the public domain under Russian and US copyright laws, perhaps they should be on Commons instead under an appropriate license per c:COM:Russia. You could ask about them at c:COM:VPC to see whether Commons could host them. If you feel that the files are within the public domain under US copyright law but not some other country'sRussian copyright law, then it might be possible to treat them locally as PD for use on English Wikipedia only under a {{PD-URAA}} license or something similar. You could ask about this at WP:MCQ. On the other hand, if you feel the files' non-free uses are justified per WP:NFCC#1, you can contest the speedy deletion tags I added to their pages by following the instructions given on your user talk page or on each file's page.

One of the files was sourced to the commercial image agency Alamy and has already been deleted. Images sourced to commercial agencies are pretty much never allowed per item #7 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC#2, and are elgible for immediate speedy deletion per WP:F7. Since that file has already been deleted, you will need to discuss it with the administrator who deleted the file if you feel a mistake was made. Commercial image agencies like Alamy, Getty, etc. have been known to try and claim copyright over PD images; so, if you can demonstrate that file is also PD, it can possible be restored. It won't, however, be restored as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC); [Note: Posted edited by Marchjuly to change "Russia" to "some other country's". -- 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: Oh I actually understand on why the File:Valeriy Porkujan.jpeg file was deleted and that's not the file I'm questioning on why it's being tagged with violations, moreso on the other two files. Regardless, I have tagged both images with disputes under the rationale of {{PD-URAA}}. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

​My first reply above contained a possible error. When I posted If you feel that the files are within the public domain under US copyright law but not Russian copyright law, I should've instead posted "If you feel that the files are within the public domain under US copyright law but not some other country's copyright law". I apologize for that because it seems to have been what you're basing your challenge to replaceable non-free use on. What you're trying to argue doesn't seem applicable to {{PD-URAA}}. While it's true that PD-URAA applies to photos first published prior to 1978 outside of the United States, it also requires that the photo be within the public domain in its country of first publication Russia as of Russia's URAA date, which is January 1, 1996. If you're arguing that these photos are public domain in Russia because no photographs of these two men existed prior to 1953, then that makes little sense. Since neither photo is described as being taken prior to January 1, 1953, they're still considered to be copyrighted under both US and Russian copyright laws. The fact that no photos of these men seem to exist prior to January 1, 1953, doesn't mean that all photos of them taken after that date are not eligible for copyright protection. Under US copyright law anonymous photos with a known date of first publication are, I believe, eligible for copyright protection for 95 years after said publication. So, what you're going to need to establish if you want to argue "PD-URAA" is that these photos were in the public domain in Russia as of January 1, 1996 if you're argument is that they are public domain and not non-free.

Finally, arguing that a free equivalent of these photos can be found per "PD-URAA" kind of makes sense per WP:FREER, but trying argue the opposite doesn't make any sense at all. If such an argument were valid, then photo of any still living Russian is OK as non-free as long as no photos of the same person taken prior to January 1, 1953, exists. That's not really how FREER works, at least not per my understanding. In general, as long as someone is still living, a newly taken image of them pretty much always considered to be possible per FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45: I've moved the above to the each file's talk page. It's probably better to continue the discussion on one of them because that's where the reviewing admin will be checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response

"Users whose accounts are currently blocked aren't not allowed to WP:EVADE their block". I suspect that's not what you meant, but I'm reluctant to change another editor's words. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Another victim of the dreaded double negative. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cactus Cooler logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cactus Cooler logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Média source hoverboard

Hello. Why remove the french source ? Best regards. TheCloud911 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheCloud911. My removal of the citation had nothing to do with it being in French. I removed the citation because citations shouldn't be added to section heading per MOS:HEAD. This was clearly explained in the edit summary I left when I made that particular edit. Since you're posting here on my user talk page, I'm assuming that you saw that edit summary but just didn't understand it. That's OK, but, for future reference, if you see an edit summary that you don't understand, it's better to ask for clarification first before simply assuming the edit must have been a mistake. Since you've re-added the citation to the section heading, I've removed it yet again. Please don't so again. You should add the citation inline near the article content that it's intended to support. If you don't know how to do this, please take a look at WP:REFB. If after looking at that, you still don't know how to add the citation, you can ask for help at (1) the article's talk page using Template:Help me, (2) the Wikipedia Help Desk or (3) the Wikipedia Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Manu thanks ! I will do that TheCloud911 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I've already moved to citation to where I think you intended to add them. If where I added them is not the right part of the article, just move them to the correct part yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)