Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today

< May 22	May 24 >

Shortcuts

The below discussions are transcluded from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 23

May 23[edit]

File:Follow You Imagine Dragons cover.jpg[edit]

This cover was recently uploaded to replace the preferred North American cover, File:Imagine Dragons - Follow You Cutthroat.png, for an American band in the article, Follow You (Imagine Dragons song). Per discogs, [1], this cover is not even shown and looks like part of the European cover. This cover is from Amoeba Music, but doing a Google search I can find no other versions like this one. The North American cover is from the Apple store and also used in Soundcloud, [2]. The uploader stated it "No reason to have the double single cover when a separate song single cover exists.", but the double cover is the original cover and this one might be fan art. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cover I uploaded clearly comes up when I search for it on Google [https://imgur.com/a/V1lqtNv]. It is the original cover for the individual song, not the cover of the double single. Also, it is not fanart or unofficial because it is used in the official lyric video for the song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoI5WTjd3w]. Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cutthroat Imagine Dragons cover.jpg[edit]

This cover was recently uploaded to replace the preferred North American cover, File:Imagine Dragons - Follow You Cutthroat.png, for an American band in the newly created article, Cutthroat (song). First off, this article might fail WP:NMUSIC and being a released as a B-side to Follow You (Imagine Dragons song), the article might be better served if merged to that song. Per discogs, [3], this cover is not even shown and looks like part of the European cover. This cover says it is from Soundcloud, but doing a Google search I can find no other versions like this one. The North American cover is from the Apple store and is the actual cover used on Soundcloud, [4]. The uploader stated it "No reason to have the double single cover when a separate song single cover exists.", but the double cover is the original cover and this one might be fan art. Aspects (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cover I uploaded clearly comes up when I search for it on Google [https://imgur.com/a/vs7igK3]. It is the original cover for the individual song, not the cover of the double single. Also, it is not fanart or unofficial because it is used in the official lyric video for the song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSAPGjnaKCA]. Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gautama Buddha statue at Kyaikto, Myanmar.jpg[edit]

Can this qualify as an "architecture" under U.S. FoP law? Per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US: "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." At least, as per a Commons admin (at c:Commons talk:Wikipedia Summer of Monuments#Monuments and copyright), the Lincoln Memorial does not fit into the definition of a work of architecture. Therefore, the statue does not fit as an architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the FoP concern would be the temple located below the statue depicted in the photo. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EmeraldRange: I am not sure that I understand your comment. The temple below is part of the same building as the Buddha. It is all one building. That said, the lower part looks more like a building is expected to look, so why would the lower part be your concern? IronGargoyle (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your other comment- I was saying that regardless of whether you can go up into the image, the temple building below the statue would qualify this photo as FoP of architecture anyways. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I think I agree. If this Buddha was not a building (which it is), it would still be allowable as an integral component of the building below (basically the logic affirmed in Leicester v. Warner Bros). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Edit conflict) This fits the definition of architecture you give above. Visitors can go up inside the Buddha, making it unequivocally a building under US law. It is certainly as much of a building as a gazebo or a garden pavilion. Other angles of the Buddha clearly show windows, and I believe that there are hidden windows in the face of the Buddha too. I assume that Jim was talking about the seated Lincoln statue inside the Lincoln Memorial and not the memorial itself (though see Leicester v. Warner Bros for why even that may qualify as part of an architectural work). IronGargoyle (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]