File talk:Do17z 20mm.jpg
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
Contested deletion[edit]
This file should not be speedy deleted as bearing an improper license, because... (your reason here) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Originally posted was in 2008 which may still have been under original (C). Now is 2018, well past fall of Nazi Germany, period when this film was produced. The film segment this image comes from is in my possession.
I am open to discuss. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a F11 speedy deletion nomination, because we don't have any evidence that the film or this particular image from it is released under the stated license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: To your concerns:
- Film, thus image, is verified to be more than 70 years old, thus copyright has expired and would fall into PD.
- The film is incomplete, thus an orphan.
- The creators was for a government that ceased to exist over 70 years ago.
- This is a derived work from an original, not the original itself or an direct copy of the original.
- Finally it is a size that even if found to still have C status would fall under its previous Fair Use rational.
- I am not trying to violate Wiki rules, all the facts indicate the image will not violate any copyright. Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy are not one and the same; in fact, the latter is much more restrictive as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It appears from User talk:Explicit#Please restore File:Do17z 20mm.jpg that a non-free version of this file was originally deleted per WP:F5. The file was repeatedly removed from Dornier Do 17 by BilCat; so, even if its licensing is sorted out, there's no guarantee that there is a consensus to use the file.
Image licensing is an important part of image use because how a file is licensed pretty much determines how it may be used, but images are like textual content in that there sometimes needs to be a consensus established to use them in an article. Like a dispute between editors over textual content, disagreements over whether a particular image should be used needs to be resolved on the article talk page and this is currently being discussed at Talk:Dornier Do 17#Image of Do 17z with cannon discuss. I think it's important for you to realize that you're not going to be able to force the image into the article even if it really is PD as long as the consensus on the talk page is not to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for input @Marchjuly:. There are 2 issues being resolved, Permission and Use. Right now the former is challenged and my arguments is proof exists image has expired copyright and is available for Wiki, it could be as (CC), but certainly a no-(C).
- Once its legal status is clear the rational is simple. As I have posted it is a unique image and worthy for inclusion. An alternate location even more justified is the MG FF cannon page as the current sample image barely shows anything of the cannon. Regards Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "(CC)" and "no-(C)" mean, but if it means that you want to license the file under Creative Commons#Non-commercial licenses, then you won't be able to because neither Wikipedia nor Commons accept such licenses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly:, some of my previous submissions as CC was accepted into Commons (but that is beside point). As to No-(c), that is No Copyright, as expired copyright (date of creation is proven no later than 1941) Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "(CC)" and "no-(C)" mean, but if it means that you want to license the file under Creative Commons#Non-commercial licenses, then you won't be able to because neither Wikipedia nor Commons accept such licenses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy are not one and the same; in fact, the latter is much more restrictive as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It appears from User talk:Explicit#Please restore File:Do17z 20mm.jpg that a non-free version of this file was originally deleted per WP:F5. The file was repeatedly removed from Dornier Do 17 by BilCat; so, even if its licensing is sorted out, there's no guarantee that there is a consensus to use the file.
- I am not trying to violate Wiki rules, all the facts indicate the image will not violate any copyright. Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I did look into picture/films produced by Germans at this time. I am sure it is free to use if the picture is taken 70 years ago, or longer. I concur the image is rare, gives a unique perspective of a short-lived aircraft. I don't think there are that many pictures or footage (if any of the latter) of the Do 17 on wikipedia, and the majority are not that clear, nor do they depict the subject completely. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair Use Rational[edit]
The FUR for this image is a number of primary sources refer to this installation, but images are very rare. It is also believed this installation was used during the Battle of Britain by Luftwaffe KG 2 and KG 76 squadrons, but again lack image support.
The books by Manfred Griehl, Richard Franks, and Chris Goss provide a single image in each of their works, but notably Franks and Goss use the same image.
To fill in a lack of information and enhance the worth of Wikipedia I upload this image of the subject. Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
