Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 25

File:Boys & Girls Clubs of America Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JJ2104 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This looks too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This feels retaliatory for previous opposition. Even if you feel this logo was not too simple, its widespread use without a copyright prior to 1989 makes it ineligible per {{PD-US-1989}}. Updated tags accordingly. I can find no copyright registration. Please take the time to simply assess whether something is labeled properly and fix the label if it's incorrect rather than assume it is wrong and attempt to get it deleted in order to win an argument. Even if this were copyrighted, a Fair Use Rationale clearly exists for the B&C clubs articles. Buffs (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean with 'retaliatory'; in a different discussion, you pointed me at a file which clearly had an incorrect copyright tag. Whenever a file has a clearly incorrect public domain tag and it isn't obvious that some other public domain copyright tag applies, the usual solution is to start a discussion at FFD.

You claim that this logo meets {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but there is no source information. As no source information has been provided, there is no evidence that this copyright tag is correct. In particular, {{PD-US-1978-89}} requires that the logo is old enough, but there is no evidence that the logo is old enough as there is no information on when the organisation began to use this logo. Many organisations change logos over time. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not concede it "clearly had an incorrect copyright tag". I contend it was accurate from the beginning. BUT even if it was incorrect, the solution would be to appropriately fix the tag, not try to delete it. B&GC of America has been using that logo since 1980. It was in VERY widespread use and I have found no evidence in copyright records that it was ever copyrighted, ergo, it IS in the public domain. Deletion should be a last resort, not the first. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Bfas-logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quackslikeaduck (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious use of {{PD-textlogo}}. This looks like a quite original drawing, although only simple lines were used. Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This feels retaliatory for previous opposition. As stated elsewhere, this logo is a Reuleaux triangle, two arcs, and two circles. While it can be trademarked, it's too simple to be copyrightable, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Even if you find it is copyrightable, I can provide a FUR as well for limited use. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  It seems rather artistic to me. Although it only uses a few simple shapes, it forms a quite creative animal face. It seems that this used to be listed as a non-free file, but someone changed the copyright tag. Compare with File:Prince logo.svg, which also only uses a few simple shapes but meets the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Prince, cannot be described as the sum of 5 simple shapes like this one (really just 3 simply flipped in a symmetric pattern). Buffs (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ballyhennessy Seal greyhound 1945.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ApricotFoot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image entered the public domain in the UK in 2015. According to WP:URAA, it is not in the public domain in the US. — Ирука¹³ 22:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and add a FUR. This is clearly the intended use of FURs. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • If an unfree file is listed as free, the standard practice is to list it at WP:FFD so that people can have a discussion about the file. The outcome may then be that a FUR is added. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

    My point is that these don't require discussion for the community at large. They require action. No attempt was made to discuss these with the uploader. No attempt made to fix tags (which, to be blunt, copyright law is atrociously complex...mistakes are bound to occur even by veterans). Buffs (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• It is unlikely that there are free photos of UK dogs from that time. Keeping it as a non-free file doesn't seem to be against WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Gen. Chuikov and Col. Batyuk in Stalingrad ruins.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wreck Smurfy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1991 law retroactively restored rights for 50 years after death. — Ирука¹³ 23:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep File is labeled properly. That law never took effect. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• You are looking at the wrong law. You should look at the 1993 law, not the 1991 law. See Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Transition to post-Soviet legislation in Russia: That new Russian law had a general copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. and was retroactive, restoring copyright on works on which the shorter Soviet copyright terms had already expired

It further says that any author who worked during WWII, or participated in the war, gets a copyright extension of four years. As this seems to be a professional photograph taken during the war, it is quite obvious that the author worked during the war. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand by my Keep. This law established a general copyright term of 50 years after the author's death or 50 years from the publication date of an anonymous work. This work is from 1942 and the author isn't known. So, even if it weren't PD due to being published a month later, it would still be 50/54 years (distinction without a difference) after that date which means it's still PD now. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)