This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Consensus for removal has been reached Werieth (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The table in the summary section violates WP:NFTABLE. Some of the images are listed as unfree and thus not permitted in the table. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete classic example. Werieth (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree, no need to have these. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagree and keep; How is this any different than Malaya and British Borneo dollar? We allow a special exception for currency articles. Why not here? Further, we have typically allowed non-free images for living people who are fugitives from the law. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the same situation as Malaya and British Borneo dollar. Since we don't allow any special exception for currency articles, that article is also in violation of WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In practice, there is a special exception for currency articles. If you doubt me, attempt to enforce WP:NFCC on Banknotes of the Australian dollar, which is the highest non-free count currency article on the project.--Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Conditional Agreement with the Nominator. - I agree in that some images should not be displayed on this table, but not in that the images themselves should be deleted from Wikipedia or Commons. My conditional agreement extends only to the following 8 images, which the nominator failed to identify, but which I identify here to avoid any assumptions or confusion:
File:VillarealBarragan.png
File:FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ GARCIA.JPG
File:Alberto-Pineda-Villa.jpg
File:Hector-Huerta-Rios.jpg
File:Eduardo-Almanza-Morales.jpg
File:Raymundo-Almanza-Morales.jpg
File:VicenteCarrilloLeyva-mugshot.jpg
File:JuanPabloLedezma-JL.jpeg
The rest of the images in the table do not fall under the Fair Use group alluded to in the nomination above and, as such, are not in violation of WP:NFTABLE.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Delete any non-free images as failing policy. LGAtalkedits 07:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is for removal Werieth (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No explanation as to why the article needs 5 different covers. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete all except the single cover. The youtube links should go as well. Does the sound clip have permission?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is already orphaned Werieth (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used at Henry VIII of England as an illustration for the purpose of "This illustration portrays the King in a new way by revealing his youth." which is unconvincing. I can't see what it adds to the article.Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Conceivably the image might have been appropriate in an article on fictional depictions of Henry VIII, contrasting different presentations up to the present day.
But this article is talking about how Henry was portrated and perceived in his own time.
Therefore I agree that the image does indeed seem to be superfluous decoration. There is nothing substantial of value it adds to understanding the real Henry. Remove. Jheald (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Masem, removing from all uses. Assuming non-free, especially given the coloring Werieth (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm iffy on the threshold aspect given that drop shadow- the rest would be acceptable, but I'm not sure if the drop shadow doesn't make it original (consider that photography of 3D items give new copyright due to shadow placement, etc.). If non-free, there is certainly no allowance to use it on each individual year page and should actually be used only once at the main Laurence Olivier Awards page. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violations removed, due to 3D effects Not claiming TOO Werieth (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as non-free and violating NFCC#10c in three articles. Seems to be below the threshold for copyright protection due to essentially being a {{PD-textlogo}}. -- ToshioYamaguchi 11:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Arguably below the threshold, though the 3d effect of the chiseled look may be a bit of a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation removed Werieth (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clear violation, there would never be a rationale for its use there - a proper free image of the park can be taken to be used to represent the stadium the team plays at. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clear violation of WP:NFLIST images removed Werieth (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute is whether the more restrictive Wikipedia policies WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8 are affected, and what can be done to allay these concerns. The best result must be that Wikipedia can use logos. This isn't obviously a matter of "corporate advertising" (as has been one suggestion, because this is also useful for trade union pages, or pages with public bodies (eg List of largest United Kingdom employers).
The argument that it breaches WP policies are mistake because there are no free equivalents (#1), the use is minimal (#3), and use significantly increases readers understandings (#8) in the same way that use of logos does on ordinary company pages (eg. in the infobox of Royal Dutch Shell). It has been argued that company names are enough for the lists for people's understanding, etc - but if that were true, we'd have to get rid of logos for all individual pages as well, because the same arguments could be made there. Accordingly I'd kindly like to request support for using the logos. I'm very happy to concede we may need to put appropriate copyright disclaimers on the image pages, though once again, it is clear that everything is indeed fair use. I doubt very much that Wikipedia is so restrictive as to prevent proper usage of these logos. I'd also like to persuade the people who have raised objections so far to reconsider their opinions, so that the encyclopedia can be a colourful, interesting and informative resource for everyone. Hopefully I don't need to remind people that this isn't a majority vote issue, and the preferences of obstructionist editors should not hinder the free development of the encyclopedia. Many thanks. Wikidea 16:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand that argument that knowing the appearance of the Royal Dutch Shell logo significantly understands my understanding of the FTSE 100 Index. I suspect that you could explain most important information about the index without even telling me the identity of the companies on the index, much less their corporate branding. That makes the use a clear WP:NFCC#8 failure. Your use of them is as a navigation index, and text works pretty well for that, making them fail WP:NFCC#1, because the images are replaceable by text.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If the newspaper webpage I gave above (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2dd328e-9e5b-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Nie0U3lk) believes that logos enhance their readers' understanding, why would Wikipedia not believe the same? You're argument just doesn't seem to fit with the interests of readers. It's obvious that it does help. Wikidea 16:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Newspapers are not under a free content mission like Wikipedia is; they only have to worry about fair use limits, which would certainly allow for such images in a table. But we are purposely more restrictive than fair use to encourage the generation of free content and avoid excessive use of non-free. Logos of companies on the pages specifically about those companies is acceptable, but not to adorn a table that just lists out a bunch of companies. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
But our free content mission isn't harmed by using non-free content, when no free content is available. There's no distinction between the list - because like a thousand webpages (such as the FT one I've given) it really is helpful for readers. This means it does not violate our policy. Cheers, Wikidea 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Why, yes, of course it harms a free content mission. Any inclusion of something which is unfree somewhere in the world prevents the use of that article in that part of the world. For example, in my country, it means that you can't use digital copies of the article FTSE 100 Index, since this kind of fair use only applies to non-digital form in my country. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"No image and free text" is free content that can be used in replacement of non-free content. In the case of that list, I see the name of the company - ergo I understand without the aid of the image what that company is. The image is nice and helps comprehension, but its omission does not harm understanding the list. Thus we use free text instead. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'd really appreciate if you tried to help find a solution to allow the logos. The "just say no" strategy you're employing doesn't help. You've got an idiosyncratic interpretation of Wikipedia policy, which takes no account of the purpose of the policies. If there's no free content (but content which is fair use) then the Wikipedia mission of free content cannot be harmed, because there is no alternative. Another possibility is that we reclassify all these logos. There's a good chance that none of them, or substantially all of them, are simple enough geometric shapes to lack a copyright, such as this logo: File:Wind Hellas.svgWikidea 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly Masem's interpretation is not idiosyncratic or unique. I agree with it, for instance, and so, apparently do Kww and Stefan2. Moreover, you're working on a false premise here, which is explained above as well: having those logos does not increase anyone's understanding of the subject of the article. FWIW, one may well ask what such time-sensitive information is doing in an encyclopedic article in the first place. Most of our article consists of listings, all of which are no doubt just as accessible and regularly updated on one or more of the sites linked at the bottom. In other words, our article is way too much a listing, a directory, and redundantly so. I'm pleased to see that those logos are gone (and the company websites, another completely redundant element); it makes the article look just a little bit more like an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no solution which would allow this use of the logos under Wikipedia policy. Masem's interpretation isn't idiosyncratic, it's pretty much exactly correct, as multiple editors are telling you.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And to be clear - you're free to add any logos that are free content - there's no restriction on those, though there is more a page style point that that many free images may bog down the page for some readers. I'm just noting we're talking only the non-free images aspect. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That's true enough. The problem was that a column half-populated with images looked confusing and was a magnet for people that wanted to "fix" the article by adding the rest.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me pretend to be Masem and say that "you're free to add any logos that are free content" doesn't mean "you have the editorial license to add any logo you want". Any such insertion is still subject to editorial judgment (and consensus), and I have yet to see a reason (besides colorfullness) for including the logos, free or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Could it be that a substantial number of the logos are not under copyright - and the labels were wrongly applied on the Commons page? I still don't see at least two of the above editors responding seriously in a constructive and helpful manner. Wikidea 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Second use removed Werieth (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used twice on the same page but only has one fair use rationale. The image thus fails WP:NFCC#10c: you need one fair use rationale for each use of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the second image - there's no way under NFCC (particularly #3a) that the same image needs to be reused twice in two separate but neighboring infoboxes. Likely unintentional misuse (I don't recall the need for a second album infobox for remastered works, but I'm not judging that). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There are still two covers on that page, which seems to be problematic under both WP:NFCCP#3a and 8. -- ToshioYamaguchi 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The other one is currently up for deletion at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The image that was used twice is the same for both albums(original and the remastered one). The other one I uploaded is the 2011 version included at the box set '20 años Discografia completa' but, at first, I thought it was the original cover, so I changed the label(Pasion-Area Creativa to DRO Records) and also I changed the date 1991 to 2011 in order to provide the correct information. --Akete92 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
all use non-free content in a list format, see Scouting in California for one example where 24 files are being used without any critical commentary on the files themselves. This violates WP:NFCC#1, 3, and 8. Along with WP:NFLISTS. See my talk page where the user claims that these pages are exempt from NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This may need a split up into multiple discussions. The files fall in multiple different categories.
Eagle Scout images
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)#History of the medal contains a list of medals. File:Eagle Scout medal THF1.png is apparently a photo of a medal from 1912. As the medal was published before 1923, it is unquestionably in the public domain. However, as this is a photo of a 3D object, the photographer gains copyright protection to the photo (per Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet). There are 5 additional medals there, and those are very similar to the first one, so I would say that those also are in the public domain per {{PD-ineligible}}. Also, most of them were published before 1978, so unless there is a copyright notice, the medals are in the public domain for that reason. Thus: all medals should go away as replaceable fair use: someone else can take freely licensed photos of the same medals. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you just did that. I wish you would have waited until the discussion was done.--evrik(talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This conversation was just beginning, and the images were being tagged. I may have jumped the gun, but they are non-free and the number crossed a nebulous line. They could be restored if needed, but at this point I don't see that happening. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Further down, there is a section titled "History of the badge". The first ones are probably in the public domain for failure to include a copyright notice or lack of copyright renewal. The rest might be fine per {{PD-ineligible}} as the changes to the earlier versions are trivial. Can we use {{PD-Art}} here, or are the badges too 3D for that? If the photographer gains copyright protection, then all need to be deleted as replaceable fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America contains a lot of badges and medals. However, the article doesn't tell when the medals were first published, and this information seems to be missing from the file information pages too (and I only checked a few of them). Some of them might be in the public domain for some reason, but it is impossible to verify without more information. The article would benefit from one or two badges but there is definitely no need for all of the badges per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. As there probably exist some free badges, everything non-free should go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had cleaned this up as some images are also used in main articles. The article needs a major update anyway. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The images are non-free and non-replaceble with free images. Since this violates NFCC I have deleted them.
I disagree with their (premature) removal. This is somewhat like Blind men and an elephant in that the images added depth to the article that is not available with just the text. They tell the story the the 100 years of the badge's existence. They should remain in one form or another. --evrik(talk) 14:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please put them back until the discussion is over. Very few people have weighed in, and I would like to get a print out of the page as it was yesterday. --evrik(talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
They should not be put back if they were replaceable fair use. It violates policy. RyanVesey 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced these are replaceable fair use. Their removal was premature. I believe this whole discussion needs the revue of an IP professional. --evrik(talk) 03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If the original badge images have fallen into the PD (due to their age), then someone can take a free photo or make a SVG-type replacement image and license it freely. The original images were scans from a copyrighted book - while the badges may no longer be copyrighted, the photograph/book would still be non-free for our purposes. Hence tagged and deleted as replaceable non-free is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
One reason I think that the images were deleted too soon (ahem, Gadget), is that we can no longer see the page and how the images looked. It would be nice to see what has to be replaced. --evrik(talk) 15:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
State articles
Scouting in California contains a lot of logos. How are these clubs organised? Are they operated by some kind of government (so that they might be covered by {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}) or are they private organisations? Also, how old are the logos? It seems that many of the clubs are very old. If the logos also are old, then some of them might be covered by {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Unless it can be shown that the logos are free, it is inappropriate to keep all of them per WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such. The question then is whether this is a list article. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a list article, despite the fact that prose and infoboxes are used. Fails NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I'd like to echo what Gadget850 has already said, "Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations ... CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such." He also addresses the age issue. So the issue becomes, as has been stated earlier, are these list articles. No, they are not list articles, and it is appropriate for the logos to be used. This is an important issue to resolve a there are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles as Scouting in California, check out {{Scouting in the United States}} and the several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos.
As I wrote earlier to Werieth, Scouting in California is the result of a compromise in long running debate over the notability of individual council articles. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. In 2006, so many articles kept getting nominated for deletion that the members of Scouting Wikiproject decided to Gabriel Valley Council&oldid=37053167 merge the individual council and camp articles into larger state articles to stop having to fight over hundreds of articles. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept.
This is not a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. As was recently noted on the DYK page, "... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?" Each council is unique to its community or region, and this is reflected in the selection of a CSP. Each of the articles could stand on its own, but that then leads to the struggles in 2006 of having to defend hundreds of articles over notability. Allowing the images to remain in the state articles is a much simpler solution.
The Scouting in California is the largest of the articles. If you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact an doesn't look like a list at all. Some of these pages, like San Gabriel Valley Council have moved back and forth from their own articles to the "Scouting in California" article. Making a policy based on the California articles is not fair. An equitable solution might be to allow the one use of each image, either in a state or local council article.
These images meet the criteria of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. The people involved with the Scouting Wikiproject have gone to great lengths to make sure that all the images use both the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} and the {{Non-free Scout logo}} templates.--evrik(talk) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a list article. I'm judging this on the fact that none of the sections show significant signs of individual notability, and thus none of them would ever be their own article. If that was the case, there may be justification to include the logo as part of significant discussion of a notable group. This is absolutely not the case here; it's made to look like individual articles but is effectively a list article since you can't separate them out. Since they're used only as decorations and the images are not the subject of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not a list. It is an article about Scouting in a particular state. I believe that each council is in itself notable, but I was on the losing side of that discussion in 2006. If it makes it easier, I'll break California into 24 different articles. That should make this discussion moot. --evrik(talk) 03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. None of the individual troop divisions appear to have this, and ergo if you try to split them off, they will be deleted or remerged back to here. This gives you no allowance to use their logos on the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources? You're creating an artificial standard. I can guaranty that each of these councils get a lot of press. There are many stub and start articles that exist and are given time to grow and expand. Of course, Scouting in California is not a list, nor is Scouting in Vermont, etc. Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America is a list. There is a clear difference. --evrik(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:N. A long standing guideline on inclusion metric. It is not a question that the issue of scouting in the state of California is a problem (the article isn't going to be deleted), but the individual divisions, must less so , and thus you are effectively listing them in this article. They would never stand on their own per notability guidelines. As that is the case, there is zero allowance to use the images without any discussions of the importance of the images from sourced materials, per NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
While you say, "They would never stand on their own ... " you really have nothing to back this up. This is just Wikipedia:Because I say so. Since you mention WP:N, I will add to what I said before. While each of the councils separately may not be prominent, they are in fact notable. Most have decades of existence, and have had years of press. Many of the larger councils have already been broken out. It wouldn't be that difficult to break them all out. Such is the case with Scouting in Washington, D.C..
Wikipedia:NFLISTS is in fact a content guideline, which is why it was posted here. This brings up another point (again). There are more than 50 of these articles. Each state is slightly different. California just happens to be the largest of them. This is a prime example of arguing the exception to prove the rule. Let me recap:
As the California article is not a list, nor is Vermont or any of the other states then there is an allowance to use the images. --evrik(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:N is an objective measure, significant coverage in secondary (non-primary, non-first party sources). The sourcing giving on the CA list page has just enough to establish that scouting in CA is a notable topic, but none of the charters have such sourcing; we would need sources outside of the scout organization and from local press to even begin to consider notability/stand-alone articles for any of the individual charters. Since you can't support individual articles for the charters, you are listing them in one large one, and thus this makes this a list article in terms of what WP:NFLISTS covers and its spirit as well. You simply have no reason why each chapter needs to have its non-free badge illustrated on a page that covers all the charters - they are purely decoration as given. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it would be helpful if we used the same language. They are councils, not chapters. Each council has a logo, and that logo found in the CSP, represents the individual nature of that local group. Thus was addressed by Gadget850 earlier.
Objective standards can be applied subjectively, as in this case. Now, maybe one day I'll have the time to fully expand all the articles to FA status, but that's not today. The charters, well, now you're just creating hurdles. The fact the councils exist is prima facie evidence of the charters.
You keep making up requirements for splitting up the articles. I can, in fact, build suitable articles that establish notability. What I was working on was cleaning up the state articles first. Let's set that aside for a moment.
Yes, a number of articles were consolidated. This does not make it a list. It makes it a large article, not on charters, but on the councils, their camps and their histories. You have never addressed the fact that there are more than 50 articles, you keep focusing on one state. Is Vermont a list article by your standard?
Would you mind showing me the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that would say California is a list? --evrik(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
To start, the Vermont article is also a list - or at least an embedded list - just as the California one and likely (from spot checking) all 50 states. You are just listing out charters and their factual information but without any other context. This is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form and thus to which NFLISTS applies (whether a full list or embedded list). Again, the images are not providing any context per WP:NFCC#8 and thus are inappropriate. And no, just because something exists (and you can prove that it exists) doesn't make it notable - at least to meet the requirement for having a separate stand-alone article. If this could have been the case, there might be an argument to use the patch/logo within the state articles, but that condition is simply not met. I will note that Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, ergo WP:NFCC#8 is again not met on these other state pages. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You can keep saying things like this, "is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form," but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable. As for their existence, the thing speaks for itself, and with that goes notability. Since you keep ignoring WP:Lists, your arguments are really more Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
How on earth is Scouting in Vermont a list? It is a recitation of facts. Yes, it is in need of editing and expansion, but it is not a list. Yes, most of the state articles are in need of work, which is what I was in the process of doing when the California article got tagged. I would like to expand the articles so they get beyond the barebones recitation of dates and other factual information. Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list. You can't use the page that is a list to prove that a dissimilar page is a list. In fact, comparing the two pages shows that Scouting in California is not a list. The arguments of seven years ago have caused these articles to languish as no one wanted to attempt to improve them. There is some irony that as soon as improvements started being made they started attracting attention again. It’s almost as if people prefer bad articles. It’s really tough to focus on improving the articles when so much time is spent discussing that this is a list: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, but this is not a list: Scouting in California. --evrik(talk) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A lot of these councils have more than just factual information. I agree that the topic needs to be upgraded, cleaned and better sourced but it is not a list, it has a lot of context. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
These articles "list" out each of the state's various scouting charters. It's a list. It may not use bullet points or a table or any similar structure, but it is a list.
Given that you just affirmed that Scouting in Texas works without images, and all of the other state scouting articles have pretty much exactly the same format and type of content (a brief history for the state, then a list of the various charters for both BSoA and GSoA), then you have just proven to us that Scouting in California (or any other state) does not need to use images. Remember the Wikimedia Foundation has required us to minimize the use of non-free work to maintain a free encyclopedia. Frivolous uses of images like this are exactly against that. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I know all about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). As stated earlier, since the California article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Once again, you're wrong on the facts. There is no "listing" of the state's various scouting charters. There are no organizations called the BSoA and GSoA. The page(s) doesn't use bullet points, or a table or any similar structure, so it's not a list. It is a description of the scouting activities in the state. For comparison, there is a list here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America.
I did not affirm that Scouting in Texas works without images. Please don't play gotcha and twist my words. In fact I said that "Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list." Scouting in Texas needs to be expanded and a great deal of work needs to be done. The other articles do follow a similar format, but that is because of the efforts of the wikiproject to standardize them.
The problem is what you have said is not true. You cannot use the Texas article (a poor article and a list) to say California is a list. While they follow the same format, the California article is greatly expanded. The article is a honest effort to write about a notable subject and is far from frivolous. The fact is, you have chosen to ignore Wikipedia:LISTS and its guidance. Instead you keep reciting the same statements and playing word games, Wikipedia:Because I say so.
Let me repeat something,
Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable.
List of Transformers books does really fit any of the descriptions of a list at WP:LISTS either, however it is a list. When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X. Werieth (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. LISTS is actually rather vague as to what defines a list - it doesn't require bullet points or a table, just that you are enumerating on a type of element. And going by your own words, if you think Scouting in Texas is a list, I do not see how it is any different from Scouting in California or other state scouting articles in that nature when you look at the structure. Even if you talk expansion, you are listing out each charter one-by-one - that is a list. It's not necessarily bulleted or formatted in that fashion, but it is an embedded list that qualified under NFLISTS, and thus making the use of images without commentary inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
List of Transformers books is a list. It says so in the title. There is also only one image used at the top of the article. When you say, "When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X." Could you please cite the policy that says so? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:LISTS. Right now, you are both making it up as you go along. You have your conclusion, and are now adjusting your facts to substantiate that conclusion. Even if that policy exists, that doesn't mean that it is applicable in the case. Scouting in Texas is a list because it does little but state the relevant information. The California article has much more depth. Also, it is not an embedded list. The examples on that are pretty clear.--evrik(talk) 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Be aware, LISTS is just a manual of style, and not policy. What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists (which is effectively what you have in these scouting articles) are subject to NFLISTS as well. We've been in this situation with many other list articles, we're not inventing something new here. It's just that you're looking for exactly what never has been spelled out - for lists or for non-free content in lists - explicitly.
But even then you have yet to show how NFCC#8 is met. The images can be omitted and the article is fully understandable. NFCC#8 failed, NFLISTS or not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am aware that LISTS is a manual of style. It is however, the only Wikipedia document that defines what is a list. You may want to lessen its importance, but that is a fact. Using your logic, NFLISTS is not policy either, but is instead a “content guideline.” I’d like to quote the top of the page on NFLISTS, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” What I am finding in this discussion is a lot of rigid and dogmatic thinking and little common sense.
I am sure that you have been through this with list articles, but Scouting in California is not a list article, nor is it an embedded list. While you keep saying that it is, when you look at LISTS, there are clear examples of what an embedded list is. When you say, "What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists are subject to NFLISTS as well." Could you please document in policy, manual of style, or content guideline where is actually spelled out? To date you have refused to do that. Otherwise, you're just making it up. The images lend more understanding to the article. In fact, since the article in question is not a list, then NFCC#8 does not apply.
You are listing out each charter within the state. It is a embedded list. LISTS does not explicitly outline the only type of lists that may be considered within its bounds, so just because you don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS doesn't mean it's not a list. You are listing out each charter, it’s hard to call that anything but a list.
And you cannot prove that NFCC#8 is met. I understand the article just fine without the patch images, since there's zero discussion of the importance of the images with regards to each charter. So even if you ignore NFLISTS, NFCC#8 still needs to be met. In fact, there is zero exemptions from NFCC - whether a list or non-list article. Every image has to meet all 10 points, and NFCC#8 outright fails for these. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never listed any charters. While you may say I am listing charters, you are not correct. What has been done is describe scouting in the state, highlighting the history and the organizations within the state. While there is a description of each of the councils (what you call a list, or listing) it is not a list. You and Werieth are the only two people so far that have expressed that opinion. Yes, because I don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS means it's not a list. I have granted that Scouting in Texas is a list, but solely to show the difference between the two articles.
The members of the Scouting Wikiproject have worked hard to make sure that all the images used in scouting related articles meet all ten points of NFCC. I believe that the images significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding, so that would cover NFCC#8.
I suggest this as a compromise: Californa will be considered an article, Texas will be considered a list. Pennsylvania will be given a period of time, say one month, to be expanded otherwise it will be treated like a list and the images removed. --evrik(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this is not acceptable. Everything in the CA article under the section "Boy Scouting in California today" is an embedded list since you are listing out each charter. PEr NFLISTS you can't use images without significant discussion about the images. It doesn't matter if you can't find anything on LISTS that looks like what you have, as LISTS does not specify "these are the only things on WP we consider as lists".
But ignore the list factor. NFCC#8 is a problem. Because there is zero discussion about those images, their removal does not impact my understanding that there are 24 various charters across the state and they have various camps and the like. NFCC#8 is two parts, while the first part - helping the reader to comprehend the topic - is an easy concept to met, its very difficult to see how the read must see these images to understand the topic. Hence they are simply not appropriate as they fail NFCC. The reason this is connected to NFLISTS is that this is what commonly happens with list-type articles that try to use images in bulk - they are there under a claim to improve understanding but show no claim to being required to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, list article, not list article, shouldn't really matter. The NFLISTS and whatnot just cover some basics, but the spirit of it does seem to more come down to NFCC#8 - what's important is how the images help the article. If they're not really adding anything much to the article itself, 'improving understanding' as the claim apparently goes, then they shouldn't be included, and they don't really seem to do much of that to me, at least in the California one. Were they free images there wouldn't be any reason that I can think of not to include them, especially since they are like logos, but unlike more standard logos these don't appear to be so important to the outwardly presented identities of the listed things themselves. -— Isarra༆ 18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
i am traveling and will have limited online access until Tuesday. I, of course, disagrees that the California article is a list or an embedded list. That overly broad standard that you are applying cannot be fairly applied across all of en.wiki. The images do add to each section as they help illustrate the individuality of each council. I don't see any consensus here either. Opinion seems to be split. I am interested in developing some sort of compromise or consensus. I would be willing to add a discussion in each section describing the CSP. This is a standard that could be applied fairly to all the articles. See you Tuesday. --evrik(talk)
There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Congressional charter
The BSA was granted a congressional charter under 36 U.S.C.§ 30905: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."[2] The charter was used as evidence by the BSA in Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, which was ruled in favor of the BSA.
Thus, in addition to standard copyright, the BSA has other rights granted by congress. There are no time limits on these rights.
I have brought this up before, with no definitive answer. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 01:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
And poking around, this same issue came up in Girls Scouts of the United States of America v. Hollingsworth. 1960. 188 F.Supp. 707. Both cases involved trademarks, not copyrights. But the charter doesn't specify, and copyright laws were much different in 1916 when the BSA charter was granted and in 1937 when the GSUSA charter was granted (36 U.S.C.§ 80305).
I think User:PumpkinSky has correspondence where the BSA said it was okay to use the images as "fair use" in wikipedia articles. --evrik(talk) 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Fair use" is something a copyright holder can't deny to users. Nor does that impact our determination if the work is non-free. We'd need the BSA to grant a free license (as outlined by WP:CONSENT) to use them without question here, otherwise we need to apply more restrictive usages. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully, PS will answer. --evrik(talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair use and non-free are different. Most any image can be used as fair use, which is why we don't use that term anymore when considering intellectual rights. The question here is whether the images are free,, in which case there are no restrictions, or non-free with restrictions. Normally the older images would have an expired copyright, but the charter grants rights beyond copyright law. In my opinion, no BSA image can be considered as free. This needs review by counsel. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright law trumps any rights the BSA may have. The Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America case had to do with trademark, not with copyright. This is an exceedingly important distinction to make. You will note that 36 USC § 30905 does not contain any language with regards to copyrights. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation got mad at Wikimedia for using its logo and ordered Wikimedia to remove it. The Foundation's then counsel Michael Godwin denied the request. See ["Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row"]. If a particular badge of the BSA is, for example, older than 90 years (1923 being the cutoff) they can not claim copyright; it has expired. There are a variety of other ways in which copyright could have expired. This chart from the Cornell Copyright Information Center explains it all. If rights are expired for a particular badge, there is nothing that the BSA can do to prevent a legitimate, non-trademark infringing use of the badge. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I noted that Wrenn was a trademark case. The FBI is not covered by Title 36. My statements are not about the use of the emblems, but about the discussion that certain emblems are free due to copyright expiration. And yes, the charter does not have any language dealing with copyright, but it also does not mention trademark, and both Wrenn and Hollingsworth were trademark cases. Again, this needs professional review. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to get professional input from an IP lawyer. Regardless of that though, the norm for handling such cases is usually guided by the Cornell chart I linked, not by an assertions of restrictions of use. As I said, copyright law trumps such restrictions. If it's public domain, there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here, just as in the FBI case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here" I have never stated otherwise and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. My point is that there is no such thing as a free BSA emblem or badge regardless of age. Thus tagging older emblems as free is wrong and tagging others as non-free replaceable is useless. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
False. If a given BSA badge was first published before 1923, it is now irrevocably in the public domain. That, for our purposes, is free. There might be restrictions on usage due to trademark issues, but those have no application here except that we typically add a {{trademark}} tag to the image. Such images WILL be marked as free if we can prove they were first published before 1923. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
False. The charter states "emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" which means it applies to both both copyrights and trademarks, and it afforded those protections before the applicable trademark and copyright laws were ever implemented. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Gadget, I'm quite sorry but you are quite incorrect. A charter for an organization does not trump copyright law. If what you say were the case, then all marks of the Boy Scouts of America would be protected under copyright in perpetuity. If that were the case, they'd have no need to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Yet, they have. A search of the USCO's online catalog finds 96 entries. Don't believe me? Search it yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But the BSA also registers their trademarks with the USPTO, and Wrenn was a trademark case that invoked the charter. I can't presume to know the intent of the BSA's licensing division that oversees this, but such registration allows others to see their copyrights and trademarks. You can search TTAB on the USPTO and see where the BSA has brought opposition to a conflict in trademarks. So, simply because the BSA complies with copyright and trademark registrations does not mean that they are the only rights. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
TRADEMARKS, not COPYRIGHTS. Again, BSA's charter can not trump copyright law. They can and most likely do protect their trademarks in perpetuity. This has no impact on our ability to use the respective images here. If, for example, they are public domain we tag them as such and add {{trademark}} to the image description page. Regardless of their trademark rights, BSA can not prevent us from using the images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT WE CAN'T USE THE IMAGES. (all caps on purpose since I have made this same statement before and it isn't getting through) It does prevent any image being marked as PD regardless of age. Since this has become a circular conversation, the best course of action is to simply delete any and all questioned images. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not an image is public domain or not has absolutely NO bearing on whether it is trademarked or not. There are plenty of things which are ineligible for copyright but are protected by trademark. For example, see the Coca-Cola logo on the right a logo ineligible for copyright but eligible for trademark. The Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain. This does not affect its status as a trademark, nor does its status as a trademark prevent it from being public domain. There is no overlap here. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Gadget on this issue. THESE IMAGES SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. --evrik(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting into legalities here, but I will say that if an image is commons-compatible there should be no issue with using it and that if it's not, we can use it under proper non-free guidelines. I know many want free images only, but such is not the case as they are still allowed under proper usage. PumpkinSkytalk 00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The BSA has rights afforded by common trademark and copyright laws. They also have rights granted by Congress in 1916 in the form of the congressional charter. Trademark law has demonstrated that the charter applies to traditional trademark law. There are no known copyright cases that have applied the charter to copyright, but that does not mean that the charter does not apply to copyrights.
"The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."
It is my opinion that all BSA images are non-free and non-replaceable. Attempting to tag BSA images as public domain is wrong. If the number of non-free images crosses the undefined bright-line, they they must be deleted. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 12:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not a bright-line. It is more like a wide fuzzy belt. --evrik(talk) 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see copyright law in the US. I point out that it starts with nearly the exact same language - "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" - yet copyright is a time-limited privilege from that. The same extends to copyright that the BSA may have - ergo BSA emblems and other works can fall out into the public domain after sufficient time has passed. The congressional charter does not give them perpetual copyright to their works. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Where does it state that the rights afforded by congressional charter do not apply to copyright law? Just because no one has invoked the charter in copyright law does not mean it could not happen. Would you have considered the charter to apply to trademarks if there had not been legal precedent? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Short of hiring an IP lawyer to review this topic for you, is there anything we can do to satiate your concerns over these badges and their copyright status? Since we are not going to be hiring an IP lawyer to do this, we have to operate from best knowledge and practice here. That practice dictates that copyright law, as outlined at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, is what applies. The BSA charter does not affect copyright law in the U.S. The absence of any case regarding BSA and its copyrights does not prove it owns copyrights in perpetuity. So, what's it going to take? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree here, and just wanted to add that I do believe that the primary reason that language is in the charter for BSA is that normally works of the US Government are in the public domain to start; this language is only clear to say that the BSA can take advantage of copyrights for their works, and thus are not public domain on creation though may fall into that with time. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Government? The BSA is and always has been a private corporation. The BSA deliberately sought the congressional charter to preserve their rights: trademark and copyright laws were very different in 1916, and the charter gave the BSA the tool to preserve their intellectual property. The history is pretty interesting. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but still. I have a very difficult time expecting the gov't even in 1916 to grant indefinite IP protection. There is completely counter to the aspect of copyright. Unless one can affirm differently, we should assume normal copyright protection exists and that some of these older images will have fallen into the public domain. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The images others have been arguing as PD due to age/copyright expiry, but you are stating must be treated as non-free due to this charter. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am lost. --evrik(talk) 21:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Gadget850 has claimed that all BSA-generated images will always be non-free because of the congressional charter that gave them such rights. The rest of us are pointing out that copyright on BSA images will eventually go away and become public domain after normal copyright terms, which would make some of the oldest BSA images free (and thus not subject to non-free requirements and perhaps simplify some of these discussions). --MASEM (t) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant which specific images are we worried about now? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming you were talking about the above Eagle Scout medals that have since been deleted under the claim they are in the public domain and thus a non-free photograph of them is free-media-replaceable. If your claim about perpetual copyright is true, then they would never be PD, and the non-free photograph would be acceptable. But most here are claiming that that perpetual copyright simply doesn't exist and thus the medals are PD and a free photo can be made of them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I deleted them as non-free non-replaceable and crossing the fuzzy bright-line of too many non-free images in the article. I am presuming that zero is an acceptable number. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In closing: I remain convinced that the logos of the BSA and other organizations are protected by the congressional charter, regardless of age. Considering such images as public domain is wrong. I am open to reconsideration upon the advice of an IP professional. --Gadget850 (Ed)talk 13:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Shenango Valley Council pennant 1927.png
File deleted Werieth (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was a creative commons image when it was uploaded. Then the licensing was changed. For several reasons, I think it should be a free image. Thoughts? --evrik(talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some problems with that image. The image is not a logo, as is claimed by the uploader. It's a pennant. The uploader does not claim that the photograph is his own work. My assumption is that the photograph of the pennant came from BSA and that the uploader chose to upload it as if it were a logo to use the fair use rationale. Instead, this appears to be a replaceable fair use case. RyanVesey 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a logo, nor an emblem or badge. It certainly doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright. The issue would be in the provenance of the image. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the history, the uploader was confused. Thy claimed both fair use and CC. It looks like a photo of an pennant made in 1927. I'll ask. --evrik(talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm turning back Gadget850's last edit to that file page. It is not a logo, it is a pennant. It was made in 1927, and the Shenango Valley Council went defunct that same year. I have searched the database and I can see nothing to say that copyright was ever claimed by the local council on that pennant. --evrik(talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I tagged it for deletion as replaceable fair use. Someone can find the pennant, presumably in a museum somewhere, and take a picture. I've also tagged it for deletion because it doesn't meet criteria 8. RyanVesey 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I can write a portion of the article to give the image context. --evrik(talk) 15:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That will still make it eligible for deletion as replaceable fair use. RyanVesey 18:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the image to the section on "Early history (1908-1950)" --evrik(talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is still replaceable. It doesn't matter where you move it, unless you take a picture of the pennant yourself, or find one uploaded under a suitable license, it can't be used here. RyanVesey 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
To go even further, even if it was irreplaceable, the image could not be used because it is lacking a source. RyanVesey 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation removed, looks too complex to be replaceable Werieth (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
all use non-free content in a list format, see Scouting in California for one example where 24 files are being used without any critical commentary on the files themselves. This violates WP:NFCC#1, 3, and 8. Along with WP:NFLISTS. See my talk page where the user claims that these pages are exempt from NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This may need a split up into multiple discussions. The files fall in multiple different categories.
Eagle Scout images
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)#History of the medal contains a list of medals. File:Eagle Scout medal THF1.png is apparently a photo of a medal from 1912. As the medal was published before 1923, it is unquestionably in the public domain. However, as this is a photo of a 3D object, the photographer gains copyright protection to the photo (per Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet). There are 5 additional medals there, and those are very similar to the first one, so I would say that those also are in the public domain per {{PD-ineligible}}. Also, most of them were published before 1978, so unless there is a copyright notice, the medals are in the public domain for that reason. Thus: all medals should go away as replaceable fair use: someone else can take freely licensed photos of the same medals. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you just did that. I wish you would have waited until the discussion was done.--evrik(talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This conversation was just beginning, and the images were being tagged. I may have jumped the gun, but they are non-free and the number crossed a nebulous line. They could be restored if needed, but at this point I don't see that happening. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Further down, there is a section titled "History of the badge". The first ones are probably in the public domain for failure to include a copyright notice or lack of copyright renewal. The rest might be fine per {{PD-ineligible}} as the changes to the earlier versions are trivial. Can we use {{PD-Art}} here, or are the badges too 3D for that? If the photographer gains copyright protection, then all need to be deleted as replaceable fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America contains a lot of badges and medals. However, the article doesn't tell when the medals were first published, and this information seems to be missing from the file information pages too (and I only checked a few of them). Some of them might be in the public domain for some reason, but it is impossible to verify without more information. The article would benefit from one or two badges but there is definitely no need for all of the badges per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. As there probably exist some free badges, everything non-free should go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had cleaned this up as some images are also used in main articles. The article needs a major update anyway. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The images are non-free and non-replaceble with free images. Since this violates NFCC I have deleted them.
I disagree with their (premature) removal. This is somewhat like Blind men and an elephant in that the images added depth to the article that is not available with just the text. They tell the story the the 100 years of the badge's existence. They should remain in one form or another. --evrik(talk) 14:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please put them back until the discussion is over. Very few people have weighed in, and I would like to get a print out of the page as it was yesterday. --evrik(talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
They should not be put back if they were replaceable fair use. It violates policy. RyanVesey 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced these are replaceable fair use. Their removal was premature. I believe this whole discussion needs the revue of an IP professional. --evrik(talk) 03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If the original badge images have fallen into the PD (due to their age), then someone can take a free photo or make a SVG-type replacement image and license it freely. The original images were scans from a copyrighted book - while the badges may no longer be copyrighted, the photograph/book would still be non-free for our purposes. Hence tagged and deleted as replaceable non-free is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
One reason I think that the images were deleted too soon (ahem, Gadget), is that we can no longer see the page and how the images looked. It would be nice to see what has to be replaced. --evrik(talk) 15:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
State articles
Scouting in California contains a lot of logos. How are these clubs organised? Are they operated by some kind of government (so that they might be covered by {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}) or are they private organisations? Also, how old are the logos? It seems that many of the clubs are very old. If the logos also are old, then some of them might be covered by {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Unless it can be shown that the logos are free, it is inappropriate to keep all of them per WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such. The question then is whether this is a list article. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a list article, despite the fact that prose and infoboxes are used. Fails NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I'd like to echo what Gadget850 has already said, "Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations ... CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such." He also addresses the age issue. So the issue becomes, as has been stated earlier, are these list articles. No, they are not list articles, and it is appropriate for the logos to be used. This is an important issue to resolve a there are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles as Scouting in California, check out {{Scouting in the United States}} and the several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos.
As I wrote earlier to Werieth, Scouting in California is the result of a compromise in long running debate over the notability of individual council articles. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. In 2006, so many articles kept getting nominated for deletion that the members of Scouting Wikiproject decided to Gabriel Valley Council&oldid=37053167 merge the individual council and camp articles into larger state articles to stop having to fight over hundreds of articles. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept.
This is not a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. As was recently noted on the DYK page, "... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?" Each council is unique to its community or region, and this is reflected in the selection of a CSP. Each of the articles could stand on its own, but that then leads to the struggles in 2006 of having to defend hundreds of articles over notability. Allowing the images to remain in the state articles is a much simpler solution.
The Scouting in California is the largest of the articles. If you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact an doesn't look like a list at all. Some of these pages, like San Gabriel Valley Council have moved back and forth from their own articles to the "Scouting in California" article. Making a policy based on the California articles is not fair. An equitable solution might be to allow the one use of each image, either in a state or local council article.
These images meet the criteria of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. The people involved with the Scouting Wikiproject have gone to great lengths to make sure that all the images use both the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} and the {{Non-free Scout logo}} templates.--evrik(talk) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a list article. I'm judging this on the fact that none of the sections show significant signs of individual notability, and thus none of them would ever be their own article. If that was the case, there may be justification to include the logo as part of significant discussion of a notable group. This is absolutely not the case here; it's made to look like individual articles but is effectively a list article since you can't separate them out. Since they're used only as decorations and the images are not the subject of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not a list. It is an article about Scouting in a particular state. I believe that each council is in itself notable, but I was on the losing side of that discussion in 2006. If it makes it easier, I'll break California into 24 different articles. That should make this discussion moot. --evrik(talk) 03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. None of the individual troop divisions appear to have this, and ergo if you try to split them off, they will be deleted or remerged back to here. This gives you no allowance to use their logos on the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources? You're creating an artificial standard. I can guaranty that each of these councils get a lot of press. There are many stub and start articles that exist and are given time to grow and expand. Of course, Scouting in California is not a list, nor is Scouting in Vermont, etc. Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America is a list. There is a clear difference. --evrik(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:N. A long standing guideline on inclusion metric. It is not a question that the issue of scouting in the state of California is a problem (the article isn't going to be deleted), but the individual divisions, must less so , and thus you are effectively listing them in this article. They would never stand on their own per notability guidelines. As that is the case, there is zero allowance to use the images without any discussions of the importance of the images from sourced materials, per NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
While you say, "They would never stand on their own ... " you really have nothing to back this up. This is just Wikipedia:Because I say so. Since you mention WP:N, I will add to what I said before. While each of the councils separately may not be prominent, they are in fact notable. Most have decades of existence, and have had years of press. Many of the larger councils have already been broken out. It wouldn't be that difficult to break them all out. Such is the case with Scouting in Washington, D.C..
Wikipedia:NFLISTS is in fact a content guideline, which is why it was posted here. This brings up another point (again). There are more than 50 of these articles. Each state is slightly different. California just happens to be the largest of them. This is a prime example of arguing the exception to prove the rule. Let me recap:
As the California article is not a list, nor is Vermont or any of the other states then there is an allowance to use the images. --evrik(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:N is an objective measure, significant coverage in secondary (non-primary, non-first party sources). The sourcing giving on the CA list page has just enough to establish that scouting in CA is a notable topic, but none of the charters have such sourcing; we would need sources outside of the scout organization and from local press to even begin to consider notability/stand-alone articles for any of the individual charters. Since you can't support individual articles for the charters, you are listing them in one large one, and thus this makes this a list article in terms of what WP:NFLISTS covers and its spirit as well. You simply have no reason why each chapter needs to have its non-free badge illustrated on a page that covers all the charters - they are purely decoration as given. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it would be helpful if we used the same language. They are councils, not chapters. Each council has a logo, and that logo found in the CSP, represents the individual nature of that local group. Thus was addressed by Gadget850 earlier.
Objective standards can be applied subjectively, as in this case. Now, maybe one day I'll have the time to fully expand all the articles to FA status, but that's not today. The charters, well, now you're just creating hurdles. The fact the councils exist is prima facie evidence of the charters.
You keep making up requirements for splitting up the articles. I can, in fact, build suitable articles that establish notability. What I was working on was cleaning up the state articles first. Let's set that aside for a moment.
Yes, a number of articles were consolidated. This does not make it a list. It makes it a large article, not on charters, but on the councils, their camps and their histories. You have never addressed the fact that there are more than 50 articles, you keep focusing on one state. Is Vermont a list article by your standard?
Would you mind showing me the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that would say California is a list? --evrik(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
To start, the Vermont article is also a list - or at least an embedded list - just as the California one and likely (from spot checking) all 50 states. You are just listing out charters and their factual information but without any other context. This is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form and thus to which NFLISTS applies (whether a full list or embedded list). Again, the images are not providing any context per WP:NFCC#8 and thus are inappropriate. And no, just because something exists (and you can prove that it exists) doesn't make it notable - at least to meet the requirement for having a separate stand-alone article. If this could have been the case, there might be an argument to use the patch/logo within the state articles, but that condition is simply not met. I will note that Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, ergo WP:NFCC#8 is again not met on these other state pages. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You can keep saying things like this, "is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form," but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable. As for their existence, the thing speaks for itself, and with that goes notability. Since you keep ignoring WP:Lists, your arguments are really more Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
How on earth is Scouting in Vermont a list? It is a recitation of facts. Yes, it is in need of editing and expansion, but it is not a list. Yes, most of the state articles are in need of work, which is what I was in the process of doing when the California article got tagged. I would like to expand the articles so they get beyond the barebones recitation of dates and other factual information. Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list. You can't use the page that is a list to prove that a dissimilar page is a list. In fact, comparing the two pages shows that Scouting in California is not a list. The arguments of seven years ago have caused these articles to languish as no one wanted to attempt to improve them. There is some irony that as soon as improvements started being made they started attracting attention again. It’s almost as if people prefer bad articles. It’s really tough to focus on improving the articles when so much time is spent discussing that this is a list: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, but this is not a list: Scouting in California. --evrik(talk) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A lot of these councils have more than just factual information. I agree that the topic needs to be upgraded, cleaned and better sourced but it is not a list, it has a lot of context. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
These articles "list" out each of the state's various scouting charters. It's a list. It may not use bullet points or a table or any similar structure, but it is a list.
Given that you just affirmed that Scouting in Texas works without images, and all of the other state scouting articles have pretty much exactly the same format and type of content (a brief history for the state, then a list of the various charters for both BSoA and GSoA), then you have just proven to us that Scouting in California (or any other state) does not need to use images. Remember the Wikimedia Foundation has required us to minimize the use of non-free work to maintain a free encyclopedia. Frivolous uses of images like this are exactly against that. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I know all about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). As stated earlier, since the California article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Once again, you're wrong on the facts. There is no "listing" of the state's various scouting charters. There are no organizations called the BSoA and GSoA. The page(s) doesn't use bullet points, or a table or any similar structure, so it's not a list. It is a description of the scouting activities in the state. For comparison, there is a list here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America.
I did not affirm that Scouting in Texas works without images. Please don't play gotcha and twist my words. In fact I said that "Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list." Scouting in Texas needs to be expanded and a great deal of work needs to be done. The other articles do follow a similar format, but that is because of the efforts of the wikiproject to standardize them.
The problem is what you have said is not true. You cannot use the Texas article (a poor article and a list) to say California is a list. While they follow the same format, the California article is greatly expanded. The article is a honest effort to write about a notable subject and is far from frivolous. The fact is, you have chosen to ignore Wikipedia:LISTS and its guidance. Instead you keep reciting the same statements and playing word games, Wikipedia:Because I say so.
Let me repeat something,
Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable.
List of Transformers books does really fit any of the descriptions of a list at WP:LISTS either, however it is a list. When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X. Werieth (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. LISTS is actually rather vague as to what defines a list - it doesn't require bullet points or a table, just that you are enumerating on a type of element. And going by your own words, if you think Scouting in Texas is a list, I do not see how it is any different from Scouting in California or other state scouting articles in that nature when you look at the structure. Even if you talk expansion, you are listing out each charter one-by-one - that is a list. It's not necessarily bulleted or formatted in that fashion, but it is an embedded list that qualified under NFLISTS, and thus making the use of images without commentary inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
List of Transformers books is a list. It says so in the title. There is also only one image used at the top of the article. When you say, "When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X." Could you please cite the policy that says so? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:LISTS. Right now, you are both making it up as you go along. You have your conclusion, and are now adjusting your facts to substantiate that conclusion. Even if that policy exists, that doesn't mean that it is applicable in the case. Scouting in Texas is a list because it does little but state the relevant information. The California article has much more depth. Also, it is not an embedded list. The examples on that are pretty clear.--evrik(talk) 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Be aware, LISTS is just a manual of style, and not policy. What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists (which is effectively what you have in these scouting articles) are subject to NFLISTS as well. We've been in this situation with many other list articles, we're not inventing something new here. It's just that you're looking for exactly what never has been spelled out - for lists or for non-free content in lists - explicitly.
But even then you have yet to show how NFCC#8 is met. The images can be omitted and the article is fully understandable. NFCC#8 failed, NFLISTS or not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am aware that LISTS is a manual of style. It is however, the only Wikipedia document that defines what is a list. You may want to lessen its importance, but that is a fact. Using your logic, NFLISTS is not policy either, but is instead a “content guideline.” I’d like to quote the top of the page on NFLISTS, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” What I am finding in this discussion is a lot of rigid and dogmatic thinking and little common sense.
I am sure that you have been through this with list articles, but Scouting in California is not a list article, nor is it an embedded list. While you keep saying that it is, when you look at LISTS, there are clear examples of what an embedded list is. When you say, "What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists are subject to NFLISTS as well." Could you please document in policy, manual of style, or content guideline where is actually spelled out? To date you have refused to do that. Otherwise, you're just making it up. The images lend more understanding to the article. In fact, since the article in question is not a list, then NFCC#8 does not apply.
You are listing out each charter within the state. It is a embedded list. LISTS does not explicitly outline the only type of lists that may be considered within its bounds, so just because you don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS doesn't mean it's not a list. You are listing out each charter, it’s hard to call that anything but a list.
And you cannot prove that NFCC#8 is met. I understand the article just fine without the patch images, since there's zero discussion of the importance of the images with regards to each charter. So even if you ignore NFLISTS, NFCC#8 still needs to be met. In fact, there is zero exemptions from NFCC - whether a list or non-list article. Every image has to meet all 10 points, and NFCC#8 outright fails for these. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never listed any charters. While you may say I am listing charters, you are not correct. What has been done is describe scouting in the state, highlighting the history and the organizations within the state. While there is a description of each of the councils (what you call a list, or listing) it is not a list. You and Werieth are the only two people so far that have expressed that opinion. Yes, because I don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS means it's not a list. I have granted that Scouting in Texas is a list, but solely to show the difference between the two articles.
The members of the Scouting Wikiproject have worked hard to make sure that all the images used in scouting related articles meet all ten points of NFCC. I believe that the images significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding, so that would cover NFCC#8.
I suggest this as a compromise: Californa will be considered an article, Texas will be considered a list. Pennsylvania will be given a period of time, say one month, to be expanded otherwise it will be treated like a list and the images removed. --evrik(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this is not acceptable. Everything in the CA article under the section "Boy Scouting in California today" is an embedded list since you are listing out each charter. PEr NFLISTS you can't use images without significant discussion about the images. It doesn't matter if you can't find anything on LISTS that looks like what you have, as LISTS does not specify "these are the only things on WP we consider as lists".
But ignore the list factor. NFCC#8 is a problem. Because there is zero discussion about those images, their removal does not impact my understanding that there are 24 various charters across the state and they have various camps and the like. NFCC#8 is two parts, while the first part - helping the reader to comprehend the topic - is an easy concept to met, its very difficult to see how the read must see these images to understand the topic. Hence they are simply not appropriate as they fail NFCC. The reason this is connected to NFLISTS is that this is what commonly happens with list-type articles that try to use images in bulk - they are there under a claim to improve understanding but show no claim to being required to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, list article, not list article, shouldn't really matter. The NFLISTS and whatnot just cover some basics, but the spirit of it does seem to more come down to NFCC#8 - what's important is how the images help the article. If they're not really adding anything much to the article itself, 'improving understanding' as the claim apparently goes, then they shouldn't be included, and they don't really seem to do much of that to me, at least in the California one. Were they free images there wouldn't be any reason that I can think of not to include them, especially since they are like logos, but unlike more standard logos these don't appear to be so important to the outwardly presented identities of the listed things themselves. -— Isarra༆ 18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
i am traveling and will have limited online access until Tuesday. I, of course, disagrees that the California article is a list or an embedded list. That overly broad standard that you are applying cannot be fairly applied across all of en.wiki. The images do add to each section as they help illustrate the individuality of each council. I don't see any consensus here either. Opinion seems to be split. I am interested in developing some sort of compromise or consensus. I would be willing to add a discussion in each section describing the CSP. This is a standard that could be applied fairly to all the articles. See you Tuesday. --evrik(talk)
There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --evrik(talk) 04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The question of whether it is a list or not is not the issue. Those images are unallowable as they all fail NFCC#8, since there's no discussion about the images and the article is readable without them. All they are, that you can justify, are pretty pictures, which means they fail as decorative elements. There's no other position we allow here. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Congressional charter
The BSA was granted a congressional charter under 36 U.S.C.§ 30905: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."[3] The charter was used as evidence by the BSA in Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, which was ruled in favor of the BSA.
Thus, in addition to standard copyright, the BSA has other rights granted by congress. There are no time limits on these rights.
I have brought this up before, with no definitive answer. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 01:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
And poking around, this same issue came up in Girls Scouts of the United States of America v. Hollingsworth. 1960. 188 F.Supp. 707. Both cases involved trademarks, not copyrights. But the charter doesn't specify, and copyright laws were much different in 1916 when the BSA charter was granted and in 1937 when the GSUSA charter was granted (36 U.S.C.§ 80305).
I think User:PumpkinSky has correspondence where the BSA said it was okay to use the images as "fair use" in wikipedia articles. --evrik(talk) 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Fair use" is something a copyright holder can't deny to users. Nor does that impact our determination if the work is non-free. We'd need the BSA to grant a free license (as outlined by WP:CONSENT) to use them without question here, otherwise we need to apply more restrictive usages. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully, PS will answer. --evrik(talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair use and non-free are different. Most any image can be used as fair use, which is why we don't use that term anymore when considering intellectual rights. The question here is whether the images are free,, in which case there are no restrictions, or non-free with restrictions. Normally the older images would have an expired copyright, but the charter grants rights beyond copyright law. In my opinion, no BSA image can be considered as free. This needs review by counsel. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright law trumps any rights the BSA may have. The Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America case had to do with trademark, not with copyright. This is an exceedingly important distinction to make. You will note that 36 USC § 30905 does not contain any language with regards to copyrights. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation got mad at Wikimedia for using its logo and ordered Wikimedia to remove it. The Foundation's then counsel Michael Godwin denied the request. See ["Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row"]. If a particular badge of the BSA is, for example, older than 90 years (1923 being the cutoff) they can not claim copyright; it has expired. There are a variety of other ways in which copyright could have expired. This chart from the Cornell Copyright Information Center explains it all. If rights are expired for a particular badge, there is nothing that the BSA can do to prevent a legitimate, non-trademark infringing use of the badge. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I noted that Wrenn was a trademark case. The FBI is not covered by Title 36. My statements are not about the use of the emblems, but about the discussion that certain emblems are free due to copyright expiration. And yes, the charter does not have any language dealing with copyright, but it also does not mention trademark, and both Wrenn and Hollingsworth were trademark cases. Again, this needs professional review. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to get professional input from an IP lawyer. Regardless of that though, the norm for handling such cases is usually guided by the Cornell chart I linked, not by an assertions of restrictions of use. As I said, copyright law trumps such restrictions. If it's public domain, there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here, just as in the FBI case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here" I have never stated otherwise and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. My point is that there is no such thing as a free BSA emblem or badge regardless of age. Thus tagging older emblems as free is wrong and tagging others as non-free replaceable is useless. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
False. If a given BSA badge was first published before 1923, it is now irrevocably in the public domain. That, for our purposes, is free. There might be restrictions on usage due to trademark issues, but those have no application here except that we typically add a {{trademark}} tag to the image. Such images WILL be marked as free if we can prove they were first published before 1923. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
False. The charter states "emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" which means it applies to both both copyrights and trademarks, and it afforded those protections before the applicable trademark and copyright laws were ever implemented. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Gadget, I'm quite sorry but you are quite incorrect. A charter for an organization does not trump copyright law. If what you say were the case, then all marks of the Boy Scouts of America would be protected under copyright in perpetuity. If that were the case, they'd have no need to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Yet, they have. A search of the USCO's online catalog finds 96 entries. Don't believe me? Search it yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But the BSA also registers their trademarks with the USPTO, and Wrenn was a trademark case that invoked the charter. I can't presume to know the intent of the BSA's licensing division that oversees this, but such registration allows others to see their copyrights and trademarks. You can search TTAB on the USPTO and see where the BSA has brought opposition to a conflict in trademarks. So, simply because the BSA complies with copyright and trademark registrations does not mean that they are the only rights. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
TRADEMARKS, not COPYRIGHTS. Again, BSA's charter can not trump copyright law. They can and most likely do protect their trademarks in perpetuity. This has no impact on our ability to use the respective images here. If, for example, they are public domain we tag them as such and add {{trademark}} to the image description page. Regardless of their trademark rights, BSA can not prevent us from using the images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT WE CAN'T USE THE IMAGES. (all caps on purpose since I have made this same statement before and it isn't getting through) It does prevent any image being marked as PD regardless of age. Since this has become a circular conversation, the best course of action is to simply delete any and all questioned images. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not an image is public domain or not has absolutely NO bearing on whether it is trademarked or not. There are plenty of things which are ineligible for copyright but are protected by trademark. For example, see the Coca-Cola logo on the right a logo ineligible for copyright but eligible for trademark. The Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain. This does not affect its status as a trademark, nor does its status as a trademark prevent it from being public domain. There is no overlap here. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Gadget on this issue. THESE IMAGES SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. --evrik(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting into legalities here, but I will say that if an image is commons-compatible there should be no issue with using it and that if it's not, we can use it under proper non-free guidelines. I know many want free images only, but such is not the case as they are still allowed under proper usage. PumpkinSkytalk 00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The BSA has rights afforded by common trademark and copyright laws. They also have rights granted by Congress in 1916 in the form of the congressional charter. Trademark law has demonstrated that the charter applies to traditional trademark law. There are no known copyright cases that have applied the charter to copyright, but that does not mean that the charter does not apply to copyrights.
"The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."
It is my opinion that all BSA images are non-free and non-replaceable. Attempting to tag BSA images as public domain is wrong. If the number of non-free images crosses the undefined bright-line, they they must be deleted. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 12:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not a bright-line. It is more like a wide fuzzy belt. --evrik(talk) 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see copyright law in the US. I point out that it starts with nearly the exact same language - "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" - yet copyright is a time-limited privilege from that. The same extends to copyright that the BSA may have - ergo BSA emblems and other works can fall out into the public domain after sufficient time has passed. The congressional charter does not give them perpetual copyright to their works. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Where does it state that the rights afforded by congressional charter do not apply to copyright law? Just because no one has invoked the charter in copyright law does not mean it could not happen. Would you have considered the charter to apply to trademarks if there had not been legal precedent? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Short of hiring an IP lawyer to review this topic for you, is there anything we can do to satiate your concerns over these badges and their copyright status? Since we are not going to be hiring an IP lawyer to do this, we have to operate from best knowledge and practice here. That practice dictates that copyright law, as outlined at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, is what applies. The BSA charter does not affect copyright law in the U.S. The absence of any case regarding BSA and its copyrights does not prove it owns copyrights in perpetuity. So, what's it going to take? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree here, and just wanted to add that I do believe that the primary reason that language is in the charter for BSA is that normally works of the US Government are in the public domain to start; this language is only clear to say that the BSA can take advantage of copyrights for their works, and thus are not public domain on creation though may fall into that with time. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Government? The BSA is and always has been a private corporation. The BSA deliberately sought the congressional charter to preserve their rights: trademark and copyright laws were very different in 1916, and the charter gave the BSA the tool to preserve their intellectual property. The history is pretty interesting. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but still. I have a very difficult time expecting the gov't even in 1916 to grant indefinite IP protection. There is completely counter to the aspect of copyright. Unless one can affirm differently, we should assume normal copyright protection exists and that some of these older images will have fallen into the public domain. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The images others have been arguing as PD due to age/copyright expiry, but you are stating must be treated as non-free due to this charter. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am lost. --evrik(talk) 21:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Gadget850 has claimed that all BSA-generated images will always be non-free because of the congressional charter that gave them such rights. The rest of us are pointing out that copyright on BSA images will eventually go away and become public domain after normal copyright terms, which would make some of the oldest BSA images free (and thus not subject to non-free requirements and perhaps simplify some of these discussions). --MASEM (t) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant which specific images are we worried about now? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming you were talking about the above Eagle Scout medals that have since been deleted under the claim they are in the public domain and thus a non-free photograph of them is free-media-replaceable. If your claim about perpetual copyright is true, then they would never be PD, and the non-free photograph would be acceptable. But most here are claiming that that perpetual copyright simply doesn't exist and thus the medals are PD and a free photo can be made of them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I deleted them as non-free non-replaceable and crossing the fuzzy bright-line of too many non-free images in the article. I am presuming that zero is an acceptable number. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In closing: I remain convinced that the logos of the BSA and other organizations are protected by the congressional charter, regardless of age. Considering such images as public domain is wrong. I am open to reconsideration upon the advice of an IP professional. --Gadget850 (Ed)talk 13:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Shenango Valley Council pennant 1927.png
File deleted Werieth (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was a creative commons image when it was uploaded. Then the licensing was changed. For several reasons, I think it should be a free image. Thoughts? --evrik(talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some problems with that image. The image is not a logo, as is claimed by the uploader. It's a pennant. The uploader does not claim that the photograph is his own work. My assumption is that the photograph of the pennant came from BSA and that the uploader chose to upload it as if it were a logo to use the fair use rationale. Instead, this appears to be a replaceable fair use case. RyanVesey 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a logo, nor an emblem or badge. It certainly doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright. The issue would be in the provenance of the image. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the history, the uploader was confused. Thy claimed both fair use and CC. It looks like a photo of an pennant made in 1927. I'll ask. --evrik(talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm turning back Gadget850's last edit to that file page. It is not a logo, it is a pennant. It was made in 1927, and the Shenango Valley Council went defunct that same year. I have searched the database and I can see nothing to say that copyright was ever claimed by the local council on that pennant. --evrik(talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I tagged it for deletion as replaceable fair use. Someone can find the pennant, presumably in a museum somewhere, and take a picture. I've also tagged it for deletion because it doesn't meet criteria 8. RyanVesey 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I can write a portion of the article to give the image context. --evrik(talk) 15:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That will still make it eligible for deletion as replaceable fair use. RyanVesey 18:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the image to the section on "Early history (1908-1950)" --evrik(talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is still replaceable. It doesn't matter where you move it, unless you take a picture of the pennant yourself, or find one uploaded under a suitable license, it can't be used here. RyanVesey 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
To go even further, even if it was irreplaceable, the image could not be used because it is lacking a source. RyanVesey 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
