Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 6

File:The Heart Of The Matter single.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SnapSnap (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Cover art of subsequent recording may not contextually signify the previously recorded hit song in question. George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

File:PhineasGage LifeMask.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EEng (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This plaster-cast still exists, and, while it is not on public display, the access rights statement at https://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/items/show/18191 does suggest that if a request is submitted, a person could access the cast and take a photo of it. Therefore, a free replacement is possible to create and this should be deleted. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep. The nomination rationale, that it is possible to access and photograph the cast, is based upon an error. As noted, the statement at [1] states that "Accessing collections in the Warren Anatomical Museum and the Warren Anatomical Museum archive requires advanced notice." Thus, it is true that there is the possibility of accessing the cast. However, the file page for the image, [2], states that: "The Warren Anatomical Museum, which holds the plaster cast, does not permit photography." Looking at the Reproduction & Use Policy of the Museum, [3], photography "for personal research purposes" is permitted under certain conditions, but publication of such personal photographs is not permitted (although they choose not to assert copyright, and there can sometimes be exceptions when the photograph is taken by a member of the staff of the center, as a work-for-hire). Thus, a photo taken by a Wikipedia editor would not be eligible for publication here, and it is unclear that a free replacement could be obtained any other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Actually, if an editor took a photo of the cast and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography suggests that Commons would gladly keep such a photo, even if publication violated a contract between the museum and the editor. We would then be able to use said photo here on Wikipedia. The fact that this is a possibility means that this image fails WP:NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  The problem with that is that the photo would have had to have been taken in a manner contrary to the museum's terms of use. The fact that Commons says: "If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract." That's basically saying "don't sue WMF", but it's pretty far from saying that the photo taking is ethically acceptable. But, taking Commons' reasoning a bit further, the fact that this museum elects not to assert copyright might mean that the file nominated here, which was apparently taken by a museum staff member, would be keep-able at Commons. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep. Nominator apparently did not read the non-free use rationale, which specifically states that "it is the stated policy of the Museum (https://www.countway.harvard.edu/chom/photography-and-reproductions) not to invoke copyright on 'digital reproductions made openly available on Harvard Library or Center web pages, digital content platforms (such as OnView), blogs, and social media.'" Softlavender (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I did read that, but it is plainly contradicted by https://countway.harvard.edu/center-history-medicine/policies/reproduction: Works over which the Center may assert copyright include digital photographs of three-dimensional objects. This is supported by https://library.harvard.edu/about/policies/policy-access-digital-reproductions-works-public-domain, which is a policy which waives any copyright in reproductions of public domain works but specifically excludes digital reproduction of an in-copyright analog photograph of a public domain sculpture, or a modern digital photograph of such a sculpture. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Read https://countway.harvard.edu/center-history-medicine/policies/reproduction again: "For digital surrogates provided by the center or Harvard Library via electronic resources or public services staff, the Center generally does not assert copyright on such reproductions" and "For works in the public domain, works for which copyright is held by a third-party, or works with known Harvard Medical Library rights that will not be invoked, the Center will assert no copyright, will charge no publication or usage fees, and will not grant or deny permission to publish. This policy similarly applies to digital reproductions made openly available on Harvard Library or Center web pages, digital content platforms (such as OnView), blogs, and social media." Read https://library.harvard.edu/about/policies/policy-access-digital-reproductions-works-public-domain again: "Under this policy, Harvard Library is committing not to assert copyright in certain digital reproductions". Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  What does "generally" mean in that first quote? Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  It means, for example, that specific units of Harvard Library may have their own policies, as is the case here. E Eng 10:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep until someone with privileges at Countway Library risks having those privileges revoked by illicitly taking a photo in violation of the provision of that library's patron agreement requiring patrons to "respect the policies regarding access to and the use of library resources". It's worth pointing out that photography in the Warren Anatomical Museum's galleries is specifically forbidden because of the presence there of human remains, which would make violation of the Museum's restrictions on photography especially egregious. E Eng 10:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
• Update, I uploaded a 3D scan of the life cast at File:Phineas Gage life mask.stl and render of said scan at File:Phineas Gage life cast render.png. I think the scan is a direct free replacement of the nominated image. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@EEng@Softlavender@Tryptofish. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a lot that is unclear to me about this, so for now, my position in this FfD remains unchanged. I'd like to know how you obtained the 3D scan, because it's unclear to me how you could have done so without misleading the museum personnel in an unethical way, and the fact that Commons might wash their hands of the ethical issues does not change the ethical issues for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The scan was obtained from https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2303917. It is clearly stated there that the uploader secured permission for distribution from the museum and the person who made the original scan. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

When you say that this is a "replacement" for this, that's kind of like how this is a replacement for this, right? E Eng 22:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

EEng has a point, in that the image quality of the render file is considerably inferior to that of the photo that has been nominated here. The encyclopedic value, after all, resides in showing the damage done to Gage's head by the tamping iron, and not in showing all the flakes of plaster. It's important to note that the policy basis for this nomination, NFCC #1, explicitly states that a free replacement must "serve the same encyclopedic purpose", not simply that it must exist. For what it's worth, following links from the source page led me to [4]. I'm wondering if that might be a suitable replacement? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

1. I was saying that either File:Phineas Gage life mask.stl or some derivative thereof is perfectly suitable as a free replacement for the photo of the model; my Blender render I slapped together is just one way it could be done. The stated purpose of the nominated image is (a) To illustrate the cranial damage resulting from Gage's injury. (b) To illustrate the contrast between Gage's appearance in the life mask (the only likeness available until the discovery of the first daguerreotype portrait of him, in 2009) and his appearance in the two extant portraits. On the first count, a scan of the 3D work may in fact be superior to a 2D image by allowing a reader to more closely inspect the cranial damage reflected in the life mask. On the second count, again, the scan copies the very life mask being discussed; a reader may orient the scan in the preview however they wish, allowing them to perform the comparison for themselves.

2. No? That comparison borders on irrelevant; of course a crocheter's artistic re-imagining of a painting isn't a replacement for the painting. Someone made a faithful scan of the 3D life mask, and I used a realistic-enough rendering engine to make a 2D depiction of said mask. The most artistic merit I got was how I lit the model and positioned the camera, both of which are available to IRL photographers. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you make it revolve slowly with an animated gif? Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My sense of where this discussion stands at the moment is that it is still a consensus to keep. You are arguing, I think, that a free equivalent could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. You have provided an example that fails the NFCC requirement of serving the same encyclopedic purpose, but you are arguing without proof, and contrary to available evidence, that someone else could do it, even with the very strict access limitations imposed by the museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

File:Nigara Mirdad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Parwiz ahmadi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No evidence of CC BY-SA 4.0 license at the listed source, nor at the origin at Nigara Mirdad on X. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 10:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete: no evidence of release. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

File:Alexander S. Wiener.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Appears to have been published on or by 1946 per this copy of the photo on eBay. I do not see a copyright notice on the ebay copy and furthermore found no records of copyright renewal by "Wain & Baruch, Inc." I believe this file should be moved to Commons as PD-US-no notice . ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Move to Commons per nom. Searches for renewals by Wain & Baruch, Inc. and the American Public Health Association turn up no relevant results. I think it can be reasonably inferred that the American Public Health Association gained the implicit right to reproduce this image in their press material, newsletters, etc., so general (as opposed to limited) publication occured. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]