 | 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. |
| Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-Admin Closure: Additional NFUR added to suffice WP:NFCC#10c. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:32, 15 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The logo would be appropriate on the two pages it lacks #10c rationales for (looks like the tourney uses a new logo each year, so...) but yes, it needs those rationales to be added. --MASEM (t)
- 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.
- 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.
Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Tagged as replaceable fair use CSD#F7. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:36, 15 November 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.
Replaceable fair use. This product has been out for a year. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:44, 6 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Copyright issues found, removed and revdel'd by Masem. See Talk:Chatham_Roberdeau_Wheat#Copyright_problem_removed for further. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 15 November 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.
Large sections of this article are plagiarized, entire lengthy paragraphs lifted from other texts. Only one reference for this entire long article. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Text-based copyright problems should be handled and discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the Noticeboard template (at the top of the page), if you click on "Copyrights (content review)", it brings you to this page. I think this article needs a content review. Maybe the template should be changed if the link is directing Editors to the wrong place. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Changed from "content" to "file". I've already added {{cv-unsure}} in the article's talk page. If you can supply the evidence of copyright infringement, then I can help you file report on infringement. Clear? --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the Noticeboard template (at the top of the page), if you click on "Copyrights (content review)", it brings you to this page. I think this article needs a content review. Maybe the template should be changed if the link is directing Editors to the wrong place. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 8 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image fails TOO, but as it is currently uploaded at Commons, the deletion will be handled there. If this logo is still necessary, a smaller lower resolution file could be uploaded locally. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:41, 15 November 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.
Hello, my fair use friends. Does this image qualify as too simple for copyright? I nominated it for deletion on Commons, but I've gotten no replies there, but I feel that you guys probably know for sure. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Arguably no, the internal color effects show creativity to push it into originality. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 9 November 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.
- 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 non-free logos violate WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS in this article. Some textlogos are potentially mistagged as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 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.
- 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.
Images fail WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c. All except one also fail WP:NFCC#7. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- No review is necessary. Per Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free images, non-free images are forbidden on user pages and any subpage thereof. Non-free images found on a user page can be removed immediately (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image). —RP88 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is images should be replaced by a single group photo per WP:NFLISTS and per WP:NFCC#3a. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:35, 17 November 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.
Do non-free fair-use character images belong on an article about a children's TV show based on such characters?
See also Talk:Tweenies#Images and User_talk:Andy_Dingley#October_2013_Tweenies
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Textbook violation of WP:NFLIST, and WP:NFCC#3a. If you actually bothered to read my post on the talk page you would know that we can get 1 group shot to replace the 4 individual images that I removed. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonable show the main characters of a notable show, but as Werieth said and I just checked, you can use one image of all four to reduce the non-free use to 1 instead of 4. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- So where is your "one image" and why have you (repeatedly, to the point of EW) already blanked all of the images from this article, specifically against the warnings about NFCR that you've already had in the last week? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The group shot I was referring to can be found here. Please stop lying about my actions. I did not removal all files. I removed the 4 individual files as clear violations of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. I repeatedly removed the files as I said, textbook violations of policy. We dont have an image on Matthew John Armstrong even though a quick google search provides plenty of non-free files available. Its because any non-free file used is a clear violation of policy. Our policy isnt to leave non-free files in place until a replacement is available, but to remove violations until an acceptable file is available and can be used. I have clearly established that the files do not meet inclusion criteria, as a single group shot is available and sufficient. The burden lies on those wanting to use the media to ensure that policy is met. I dont need to bend over backwards and upload files for you. Your whole refusal to follow NFCC is appalling. Werieth (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Appalling? But your edit-warring, for which you've already been warned on just the same issue is perfectly OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Removing text book violations is perfectly OK. What grounds do you have for repeatedly violating WP:NFCC? Oh wait NONE. You where told several times and explained to why the files failed but you either dont listen or are incapable of understanding what I was telling you. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)In this case, Werieth is absolutely right - there is an unequivocal route to reduce non-free use per #3a and thus the four existing images can be removed. This is not comparable to his ANI case where there is some possible ambiguity in use. And he is right that it is your burden to do the replacement if you want to have the image of the 4 characters. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Appalling? But your edit-warring, for which you've already been warned on just the same issue is perfectly OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The group shot I was referring to can be found here. Please stop lying about my actions. I did not removal all files. I removed the 4 individual files as clear violations of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. I repeatedly removed the files as I said, textbook violations of policy. We dont have an image on Matthew John Armstrong even though a quick google search provides plenty of non-free files available. Its because any non-free file used is a clear violation of policy. Our policy isnt to leave non-free files in place until a replacement is available, but to remove violations until an acceptable file is available and can be used. I have clearly established that the files do not meet inclusion criteria, as a single group shot is available and sufficient. The burden lies on those wanting to use the media to ensure that policy is met. I dont need to bend over backwards and upload files for you. Your whole refusal to follow NFCC is appalling. Werieth (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NFLISTS tells that you should use a single group picture instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 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.
{{PD-textlogo}}. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 08:50, 19 November 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.
PD-ineligible-USonly|Senegal ? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. This is definitely {{PD-textlogo}} in English Wikipedia. If you wish to move it to Commons, check the laws of the country of origin too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:06, 4 November 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.
{{PD-textlogo}}. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 08:59, 19 November 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 seems to be PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:57, 4 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Article was deleted. Consensus is image is useless and has been tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:26, 17 November 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.
A non-free picture that became useless, since the article including it Centre for European Reform was deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Expired PROD, concern was: No notability could be established, although the think tank has managed to market itself through several venues, it is not a source o...). It goes against NRC rationale 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." 46.37.69.120 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- The image does not meet the threshold of originality in my opinion, so this could be retagged as free. I don't know whether orphaned non-free images that are likely to be free are usually being retagged or just deleted, nor whether this particular image would be useful anywhere on Wikipedia or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be below the US's threshold but might not be in some EU countries. As such, it probably should be deleted, though can be reuploaded if the article is recreated without the notability concerns. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, specially in the UK, where the Centre is based, the threshold is lower. 46.37.69.120 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be below the US's threshold but might not be in some EU countries. As such, it probably should be deleted, though can be reuploaded if the article is recreated without the notability concerns. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't look eligible for copyright in the United States, but it doesn't look useful for Wikipedia either, as the article was deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 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.
File:Buddy (novel) Original Cover.jpg retained, File:Buddy (TV tie in cover).jpg removed. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
_Original_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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.
Article has two non-free covers but only one is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 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.
The article was deleted per WP:CSD#G11. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 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.
Inappropriate use of non-free book covers. The article also needs a general cleanup. Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 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.
Requirements for WP:NFCC#8 have not been met in either case Werieth (talk) 13:33, 20 November 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in that this still does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and it's omission would not be "detrimental to that understanding". It is not possible to use this (or probably any still) to show what is a moving dance. LGA talkedits 04:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, it, in fact increases the understanding why Cyrus was not only criticized, but panned by music critics, television critics, pro-family associations, youth parents Thicke's mother, and basically anyone who watched the show. Also, Cyrus performance went viral and it is subject of several internet memes. You can't say that fails #8 without giving a valid reason to fail #8, because I have had contact with people who didn't watch the MTV's and they were like "Really, what she did". So, yes, this increases the understanding of the topic: the MTV performance added to relevant sections. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, thanks for notifying me about this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- But you can only tell what she is doing with a description so the image adds nothing. As for the lack of notification but apparently it is not deemed relevant to notify uploader. WT:Twinkle is the place to talk about that. LGA talkedits 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete in both uses. We don't need to see a photo of known people with the description "twerking" to understand that the dance move was criticized (I am surprised we don't have a picture of twerking on the article about it, but that can be done with a free image). This is far different than something like Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy where the action performed was not a common action that could be simplified. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete in both uses per MASEM.--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Adds significantly to our understanding, and omission would be detrimental. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I would argue that the removal of the image would prove an issue, as it is rather difficult to explain what "twerking" is in words only. The image succinctly illustrates this, and why it was controversial.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: neither use in Blurred Lines or We Can't Stop adds anything significant that can justify the inclusion of a non-free image and the facts are already expressed in prose with only states that the twerking took place at that event involving Cyrus and Thicke. There is no reliably source critical commentary about the image in either article. Readers who don't know what twerking is can easily refer to the linked article on the topic where a free image, actually a video, which is even more informative, is available. ww2censor (talk) 08:51, 2 October 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.
- 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 concerns the use of what is currently nine separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:
- WP:NFCC#3a: having nine separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
- WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
- WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.
RJaguar3 | u | t 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, yeah, there is absolutely no need to iterate the small changes in the onscreen scoring banner with non-free media. Most of these sections are unsourced, meaning that we're looking at original research at how important these changes are. It's a fricken' scoring banner! --MASEM (t) 22:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. The small changes can be a big thing in some certain situation. For FOX, after introducing this Digital On-Screen Graphics during NFL on FOX, they ended up applying to ALL of their sport broadcast. It's not a fricken scoring banner, it's also a branding as well as whole. Unsourced or not, this is pretty important. Although the images should be cropped to just show the scoring banner, as I feel the picture of the whole game is somewhat distracting. Bentoman (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all per 3b: the football game itself is not necessary to demonstrate the score box. The number of images/examples of score boxes on the page itself would seem to approach violating WP:IINFO; I don't think we'd accept screenshots of each Windows OS desktop, for instance, without significant discussion alongside each image. The layout here, and what would be here with software screenshots, is much like a changelog. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 19 November 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.
- 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.
(Much of the argument is the same as for the NFL on Fox discussion above, but for convenience I shall reproduce it here, adapted.)
This concerns the use of what is currently six separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:
- WP:NFCC#3a: having six separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
- WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
- WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.
RJaguar3 | u | t 19:30, 6 October 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.
- 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.
Is the dome shape too much for the threshold of originality, or is this PD-textlogo -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's closer than the previous ones, but I would say PD-textlogo. Especially useful to consider in determining whether TOO is met is the Best Western logo that was refused registration. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Very dubious, see copyrighted example at the bottom of page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf --Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image deleted as CSD#F5 by Mark Arsten. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:47, 22 November 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.
Self-nomination from myself, the uploader, given the concerns expressed by other editors. I disagree with the principles involved here, but if it'll take finding someone to get into the museum and snap a photo discreetly, so be it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- First, to be clear, we're talking about the copyright of a photo of 3D objects, not the statues (which have long gone out of copyright); copyright law considers the lighting and shadows of the statues as creative elements from the photographer so that's where the copyright issue is. Looking at the talk page, the question is if there is a legal issue with a visitor's photography of these. According to this page some of the works at the museum are under "no photography" rules, and while I see the arguments being made "oh you can just bend those", I strongly disagree with that; we don't allow people to trespass to make free images, so at the same time we should be respecting museum's rule on photography (especially since it would be obvious to the museum that someone took that image without clearance). So the question boils down to, where are these statues located within the museum - are they in the part of the museum that allows photography? If so, then yes, it is immediately a replaceable free work and should be removed. If they are not, then assuming that the image otherwise meets other aspects of NFCC it is probably okay.
- That said, I believe that photography of these are allowed: the display details suggest that they are located in the 1st floor of the Heiseikan building; the only flat out restriction is on the 2nd floor (but individual works may be marked). But in considering that, a Google Image search on "haniwa with drums at tokyo museum" shows a LOT of amateur photography and very little that looks like it was made discretely, again suggesting that there's no photography bans on this exhibit. Yes, there is glass between the photographer and objects, but that's something that can be carefully avoided. So yes, unless it can be shown that this specific exhibit has a "no photography" sign, a free replacement can be made. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete (I previously commented on the file page.) With reference to the above comment about trespassing, there would be no trespass involved in legally accessing this exhibit in order to photograph it. Regarding the house rules, it's worth noting wikiversity:Museum photography#House rules: legal and psychological aspects. We're here to try to build a free encyclopedia, not to prop up unenforceable prohibitions. IMHO museums' stance on "prohibiting" photography of works not subject to copyright may be counter-productive. I guess their management (and/or curators) may feel that providing good quality photographs for free may have a negative impact on visitor numbers. It could be postulated that the converse may sometimes be the case: high quality free information about a subject (with a link to where relevant artefacts are exhibited) may in fact increase visitor numbers. It could be the case that readers of related articles on Wikipedia are encouraged to visit because photographic representations are likely to be inferior to the experience of viewing said artefact(s) in person. Surely anyone planning a visit to such a museum is unlikely to cancel upon discovering that free photos of all the exhibits exist. -- Trevj (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would still think that if there was a well-known house rule that a certain piece of work was prohibited from photography, and that fact is well know, even if the work is out of copyright, it would be bad for us to host a photograph taken by a visitor of that work. Arguably, the grounds of the museum are not public property (in most cases), so such photography could be considered trespassing, and would make taking the free image a legal matter. I am well aware that most of the time the photography rules are there on the assumption the museum won't be able to stop everyone, and looking to minimize the effects of flash on certain works and less about copyright nature, but still, there's a certain respect I think we need to carry here too. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- If there are photo restrictions, it may be a good idea to create a sockpuppet account for the sole purpose of uploading the image. That way, the museum will find it harder to track the photographer in the event that the museum wishes to sue the photographer. You could alternatively wait until prescription cancels any right to sue you for trespassing. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would still think that if there was a well-known house rule that a certain piece of work was prohibited from photography, and that fact is well know, even if the work is out of copyright, it would be bad for us to host a photograph taken by a visitor of that work. Arguably, the grounds of the museum are not public property (in most cases), so such photography could be considered trespassing, and would make taking the free image a legal matter. I am well aware that most of the time the photography rules are there on the assumption the museum won't be able to stop everyone, and looking to minimize the effects of flash on certain works and less about copyright nature, but still, there's a certain respect I think we need to carry here too. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- We have lots of photos from for example sports events which were created in violation of house rules, and I am not aware of any restrictions on using those on Wikipedia. Why would museums be any different? I assume that we have lots of photos from museums with photography restrictions too, although I don't know where to find them. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Without investigating any further, I'd suggest that at least a few such museum photos could probably be found within commons:Category:National museums by country. -- Trevj (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Um, what type of photos are breaking house rules in terms of sporting events? I do know that the broadcast of most sports events is copyrighted, but I've never been to a sport event where photography by the audience was disallowed. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- See for example this page. Last year's Olympics in London had photo restrictions: you couldn't bring too big cameras and you couldn't use your photos commercially. If a photographer violates the house rules, the organiser could possibly sue the photographer, but this is an issue entirely between the photographer and the organiser – I, as a third person, am still permitted to use such photos commercially. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- However, amateur photography (the type we generally expect for free license uploads) still was okay, and so that's really not an interference there for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Amateur photography was permitted at the Olympics, but the organiser tried to restrict how the photos were used. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think a CC-BY license would be considered a commercial use (you certainly aren't making money off it), and even if a reuser came along and used the CC-By usage in a commercial work, the "image" is still free (and if they didn't follow proper attribution, that's not the original photographer's fault), so I don't see how this is really an issue. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Amateur photography was permitted at the Olympics, but the organiser tried to restrict how the photos were used. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- However, amateur photography (the type we generally expect for free license uploads) still was okay, and so that's really not an interference there for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- See for example this page. Last year's Olympics in London had photo restrictions: you couldn't bring too big cameras and you couldn't use your photos commercially. If a photographer violates the house rules, the organiser could possibly sue the photographer, but this is an issue entirely between the photographer and the organiser – I, as a third person, am still permitted to use such photos commercially. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#10c and has been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:36, 22 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- The use in Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image is not needed for a readers understanding of that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:53, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#10c and has been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:38, 22 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- The use in Coalition governments in Turkey violates WP:NFCC#8. The image is unnecessary in that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:56, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is still considered non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:31, 22 November 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.
Because current Oreo logo is now at Commons, is the iCarly logo eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Checking the history of the Oreo image, it was uploaded without comment there, and I question if it belongs there (as such, I've nominated it for deletion there). The issue is that there's coloring/shading specifically to give it a unique 3D effect, like one would in a photograph, and as that would be protected for photography, I can't see how the same wouldn't be true for the logo. This one ,for iCarly, is even moreso trying to capture the 3D-ness with lighting effects, so I wouldn't consider it free at all --MASEM (t) 18:31, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:28, 22 November 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.
Fails NFCC#1. Image is copied off rightmove.co.uk and claims fair use, but an alternative free image File:Rainthorpe Hall - geograph.org.uk - 415023.jpg already exists. No reason for NFCC#1 given in the fair use template. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Obvious case indeed. In the future, I'd recommend just tagging such cases with {{rfud}} for more expediency. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 15 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#10c and has been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:27, 22 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in the BLP article. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 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.
Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 22 November 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 file is used to illustrate the article The End of the Road. The cover is not discussed or even mentioned in any part of the article, and is not strongly associated with the novel or illustrative of any event in it. I consider its inclusion gratuitous, and can't imagine what rationale would be sufficient to keep it, but I'm not a copyright expert. Is it actually justified? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- One cover of a work, as the identifying image for the standalone article for that work, is considered appropriate for non-free, as per WP:NFCI#1. Even if the cover is not talked about, the use of the cover in discussion about the book is considered to implicitly carry information about the book's branding and marketing, and thus completely within fair use and non-free laws. (Yes, some of us have argued that such cover uses are gratitious but consensus is heavily weighted for inclusion). --MASEM (t) 02:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The cover has not been used on any edition since the first in 1958, and only hardcore collectors are likely to have even seen it. Hardly an "identifying" image, especially since the painting has nothing ot do with the contents. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but this is the core of how NFCI#1 has come about, and this is not an edge case; it clearly falls within the allowances determined by consensus. (Even the Foundation notes that identification of published works is a common allowance for NFC). --MASEM (t) 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- We have a very well-established consensus supporting such use, which falls squarely under the WMF's statement that nonfree images may be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- NFCC Policy #1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" The article was doing that just fine when there was no image there.
- NFCC Policy #8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.": Omission of the image in no way impinges on readers' understanding of the topic—the image itself is unrelated to the content of the book, and could contribute to confusion because of that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The cover has not been used on any edition since the first in 1958, and only hardcore collectors are likely to have even seen it. Hardly an "identifying" image, especially since the painting has nothing ot do with the contents. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Mind you (checking the history involved here), one is not required to include a cover image if they feel that it doesn't help, but the decision to include or exclude is a function of consensus for that talk page. If it is used, it does need a proper non-free rationale. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Four editors who have contributed not a single character worth of content to the article have declared that a non-free image (in an otherwise totally free article) must be used, regardless of its relevance or what it may or may not contribute to the quality of the article. None of the editors have made any attempt to discuss the image's apporpriateness—they've only declared that articles using {{Infobox book}} must include an image of the first edition, end of discussion. None of the editors in question have bothered to leave any sort of comment on the talk page—you can see there that another editor opened the "debate" months ago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Omitting first edition cover harms readers' ability to acknowledge how the book was first published and released. The year is sourced, and the publisher is sourced. Is that enough? Looking at the first cover helps me understand how the book first attracted early audiences. Look at Catcher in the Rye, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Marathon Man (film), A Time to Kill (novel), etc. They have first edition covers and theater posters. Why taking them away just because they aren't described in prose? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- George Ho: We're not talking about those specific articles; we're talking about this specific article. Or are you arguing that every article must include the first edition cover regardless of context? Why include the cover when it is totally obscure and unrelated to this book's content? Have you looked at the image under discussion? Have you read the article? The version of the book this cover decorated hasn't even been in print for nearly sixty years—every in-print version, and most out-of-print versions are of the 1967 revised version of the book—before the 1967 version, hardly anyone had ever read the book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, every book page must use "first edition" cover... for English Wikipedia (and other Wikipedias that allow non-free fair use, but not Japanese). The book cover is irreplaceable because, like you said, it's no longer produced. It meets NFCC#1 because it's an irreplaceable, out-of-stock non-free cover. Also, a mere title, plot summary, and release date won't replace this image. Even a crappy, short article that does NOT have a complete plot summary must have an image; see Inspector Morse books (adapted into TV movies). NFCC#2 because using a front cover does not affect copyright of the book itself; I guess re-summarizing the plot without exactly copying the book won't affect the book's copyright. NFCC#3 because... it's just a first edition cover; what's the big deal? I'll not go over other criteria, but NFCC#8 because the first edition is very old and irreplaceable, and omitting it is demeaning to history and education. Also, a mere book title and year are evident enough to allow use of this image. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am flabbergasted. There really is no rational response to that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, every book page must use "first edition" cover... for English Wikipedia (and other Wikipedias that allow non-free fair use, but not Japanese). The book cover is irreplaceable because, like you said, it's no longer produced. It meets NFCC#1 because it's an irreplaceable, out-of-stock non-free cover. Also, a mere title, plot summary, and release date won't replace this image. Even a crappy, short article that does NOT have a complete plot summary must have an image; see Inspector Morse books (adapted into TV movies). NFCC#2 because using a front cover does not affect copyright of the book itself; I guess re-summarizing the plot without exactly copying the book won't affect the book's copyright. NFCC#3 because... it's just a first edition cover; what's the big deal? I'll not go over other criteria, but NFCC#8 because the first edition is very old and irreplaceable, and omitting it is demeaning to history and education. Also, a mere book title and year are evident enough to allow use of this image. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- George Ho: We're not talking about those specific articles; we're talking about this specific article. Or are you arguing that every article must include the first edition cover regardless of context? Why include the cover when it is totally obscure and unrelated to this book's content? Have you looked at the image under discussion? Have you read the article? The version of the book this cover decorated hasn't even been in print for nearly sixty years—every in-print version, and most out-of-print versions are of the 1967 revised version of the book—before the 1967 version, hardly anyone had ever read the book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Basically, you're not going to be able on a claim that the image violates NFC here. I've seen from the past discussions you refer to is that you aren't accepting that everyone else feels an infobox image is appropriate here, so I don't think you're going to be able to argue further against its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Masem: There's a world of difference between "appropriate" and "required". These editors have made a non-free image a requirement, despite an apparent lack of interest in the article itself, which as far as I can tell is a grotesque distortion of what the WMF has stated. This is like groups of infoboxers going around forcing "consensus" on the inclusion of an infobox in an article against the article editors' judgement—which I believe has been specifically outlawed, has it not? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Omitting first edition cover harms readers' ability to acknowledge how the book was first published and released. The year is sourced, and the publisher is sourced. Is that enough? Looking at the first cover helps me understand how the book first attracted early audiences. Look at Catcher in the Rye, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Marathon Man (film), A Time to Kill (novel), etc. They have first edition covers and theater posters. Why taking them away just because they aren't described in prose? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Four editors who have contributed not a single character worth of content to the article have declared that a non-free image (in an otherwise totally free article) must be used, regardless of its relevance or what it may or may not contribute to the quality of the article. None of the editors have made any attempt to discuss the image's apporpriateness—they've only declared that articles using {{Infobox book}} must include an image of the first edition, end of discussion. None of the editors in question have bothered to leave any sort of comment on the talk page—you can see there that another editor opened the "debate" months ago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What really bothers me is how the inclusion of a non-free file is being forced on an article without even the pretence of discussing the specific file or specific article. The image is being forced upon the article just because, and screw this whole "context" BS. Angr has an interesting parable on this whole ridiculous situation. Belief in a free encyclopaedia is obviously something consensus has decided against. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The point is - you're not going to find any NFC advice here to counter the removal of the image from the infobox - it fits all the allowances of cover art. You will have to make your point that you don't believe the article needs the cover, at the talk page about the book or elsewhere, and while NFCC would encourage that if it could be remove it should be, NFCC does not require its removal. It's a matter consensus if it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you're not paying attention to what George Ho is writing. According to him, the issue is not a matter of consensus---it's a requirement, no exceptions will be considered. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say it's a "requirement", but it's a "must have". Although image is not required, the image is essential. George Ho (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, this is not true, George. If editors on a page want a single cover of a book for the book's identification, it is going to sail by NFCC as an allowed image, but there is zero policy or guideline that requires that cover to be used in the way you are saying; consensus on the book's talk page should be used to decide that. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say it's a "requirement", but it's a "must have". Although image is not required, the image is essential. George Ho (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you're not paying attention to what George Ho is writing. According to him, the issue is not a matter of consensus---it's a requirement, no exceptions will be considered. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, as I said, an image is not necessary. Nevertheless, a non-free image must qualify as fair use in Wikipedia. This image qualifies already, so can I close this discussion as "withdrawn" by you? George Ho (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Withdrawn from this forum. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:49, 22 November 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Moved to WP:FFD as it appears to fail WP:NFCC in all articles in which it is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Discussion has been successful, the article has been updated to include critical commentary about the image, therefore the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:16, 24 November 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.
Not sure why this image is in the article, it is extremely vague and not needed. Scotland Yard said this month that they now believe this man was not involved. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Even in such a case that the man may have still been wanted, we are not a police blotter, and such perp sketches are not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is an integral part of the story and has been the subject of extensive commentary. It's an artist's impression from 2008 based on a key witness statement, one that for five years was thought to be an image of the abductor, and which determined what time the police believed the abduction to have taken place. I've posted a description of the images on the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if anyone commenting would read it, particularly nos 3 and 4 to understand the relationship between this image (the Tanner report) and one of the e-fits (the Smith family report).
Scotland Yard now believes this man was probably not involved (though they are not sure of this), but they are not the only people investigating; the Portuguese police have just reopened their investigation. But involvement is not the only issue; this image has been historically important to the investigation, and the article is trying to tell the story of that investigation.
As with the other images Werieth wants to see removed/deleted, the copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia and its readers benefit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter one iota if they wanted the image to be distributed widely - it is not under a free license, and thus inclusion hurts our free content work. We don't need to see the indistinct artists' conception of the perp to understand the history of the case. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- How exactly does inclusion of this image hurt our free-content work? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's non-free. It makes it difficult for those that want to redistribute the work to do so (one of the goals for being a free content work). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- How would it make things difficult for anyone wanting to redistribute the work? There are no legal or financial issues with it. What would the difficulty be exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Copyright ownership and reuse. The Foundation wants the content to be redistributed and reused without any limitations, and while the FMF has clearly sent the image out for people to redistribute, the limitation on reuse (including derivative works) can be a problem for some reusers. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any limitations on reuse. Can you explain, and also can you give an example of what kind of publisher might have a problem because of this image? I'd really appreciate a full explanation. I'm otherwise at a loss as to how anyone could see this image, and that of Madeleine's eye, as genuinely problematic (as opposed to problematic only if the policy is interpreted in an extreme way). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is explained in detail at the Foundation's page about Free Content: "Because copyright law in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work." And as for the issue of including just these images and not hurting anything, I point to the essay WP:VEGAN. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Clear NFCC violation. The image shows a person carrying a child, but you can barely see what the child and the person look like. As such, the image doesn't seem to serve any functional purposes, and you could easily imagine what it looks like when an adult carries a child without including this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you think about the content of the image, Stefan, the point is that the image itself has been extensively discussed: how it came to be produced, why it wasn't used earlier, why the McCanns had to arrange it themselves, etc. It has come to be an iconic image of an investigation gone wrong. That's why it's in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see nothing in the article about how this image came about. It's clearly based on the Tanner report, but the image itself is not mentioned at all (I recognize that the image description page says it was provided by the FMF), and the details in prose about the Tanner report are sufficient to understand what the witness believed she saw without seeing the artist's perception. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Update. Just to update this issue, the Sunday Times insight team has today reported on a disagreement in 2008 between private detectives working for the McCanns (including M15 officers) and the McCanns, regarding whether to highlight the Tanner report (this is the image under discussion here), or the Smith report (the e-fit in the section after it). See "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years", The Sunday Times, Insight team, 27 October 2013. It's an interesting article, and is likely to generate more discussion. This underlines why both images are needed in the article. See this section for the information we have so far on these images, which is likely to get expanded as more sources discuss the new material. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the Sunday Times has much of the article behind a paywall, but taking what you say, I see little how this shows any increase in the need to use the image. Clearly the article highlights the reports themselves, but the way that the content is given, you don't need the visual depiction to understand the timing and relationship of the Tanner and Smith reports; as you seem to suggest, the Tanner report is still being considered a red herring, but again, I'm not able to read the full Times articles to know if this was implied. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, I know you mean well and that you're trying to uphold project principles. But with respect, the problem is that you're setting yourself up as, in effect, an editor-in-chief regarding a complex story that you're understandably unfamiliar with (if you search online you will find that story, by the way). And I'm expected to come here to explain myself, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) I'm currently taking time away from writing the article to do that, which is frustrating.
It's a complex issue, but basically it is about the two images in the section I linked to above (one of which you want to delete). The question the sources ask is: why was the first image published in 2008 when it showed no face, while the second image, which did show a face and was also available in 2008, was not published until 2013? The man who helped to produce the second image, a former M15 agent, has expressed his concern to the Sunday Times. So this is about the content and handling of these two images. That is why we include them both.
If you read our article and the Sunday Times story, you will see why the images matter, and I will be expanding those issues as more sources become available to explain what happened. I think this has to be my last response about this, because really it is obvious that these images both satisfy the policy, and that to include one but not the other would mean we'd be telling half the story, and in effect choosing to highlight one side. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- One final note: there are BLP issues here, which means the text explaining the images has to be written conservatively. It is touched upon in the section I linked to above, and expanded a little in the section about private detectives. I'll be expanding it some more too. But it has to be written carefully because of the BLP concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's really not the images at the central focus of the issue, but just the conflicting reports. The existence of these images are of course explained, but we don't need to show the images as evidence they existed. I can take the image out and the article loses no comprehension of the topic as a whole (or in particular that there were two reports, conflicting, one considered a red herring but somehow put forth as the leading suspect), failing the second half of NFCC#8 outright. Add that the picture , which isn't highly detailed or of particular artistic merit, is fully explained in the prose already, so it also fails NFCC#1. And arguably its not the image that is the subject of this newfound issue as reported by the Times, but the reports from the eyewitnesses themselves, of which the image forms a small part. So yes, there will be more on the reports and why one was favored over the other, but that gives no additional weight to the importance of the image itself. Could that change with additional reports? Possibly but I would consider that a far outside chance since the issue appears to be about why one report was put to the public's attention over the other. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but this type of image weakens NFC and our attempts to continue to minimize its use because it is far outside expected requirements for a non-free image; I will generally try to figure out if an image is really usable with tweaks (see, for example, the eye image on this article, I'm pointing out a solution that reduces non-free but doesn't change the ability to se the eye mark at the same current resolution), but I really can't see anything in this present case to keep it, and the point here is that while you are providing more evidence, it really isn't helping to support the image's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- And to add, maybe there's more language that can be added to better justify it. As a case that is clearly allowed per consensus, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg - the picture of the two Boston Marathon bombers taken from a security cam prior to them planting the bombs, has clearly been shown to pass NFC as 1) it shows both brothers, one who died a few days later, and now known to be the likely culprits of the bombing and 2) the FBI identified that specific image as the one that lead them to the identification and manhunt that captured them. Now, in this case, I know that the article says the publication of the image caused the man who believed he was the one that was seen to go to the police and prove that he was innocent. That sorta meets the same reasoning as the FBI's claim, above, but the image clearly fails to identify any person with clarity. That's why if you can write more to specifically call out to the importance of the images (not the reports themselves, but specifically the images) there may be more reason to keep it. Did the public flood the police with false reports of people matching the image to affect the investigation? Did they accidently arrest anyone based on that image? --MASEM (t) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's really not the images at the central focus of the issue, but just the conflicting reports. The existence of these images are of course explained, but we don't need to show the images as evidence they existed. I can take the image out and the article loses no comprehension of the topic as a whole (or in particular that there were two reports, conflicting, one considered a red herring but somehow put forth as the leading suspect), failing the second half of NFCC#8 outright. Add that the picture , which isn't highly detailed or of particular artistic merit, is fully explained in the prose already, so it also fails NFCC#1. And arguably its not the image that is the subject of this newfound issue as reported by the Times, but the reports from the eyewitnesses themselves, of which the image forms a small part. So yes, there will be more on the reports and why one was favored over the other, but that gives no additional weight to the importance of the image itself. Could that change with additional reports? Possibly but I would consider that a far outside chance since the issue appears to be about why one report was put to the public's attention over the other. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but this type of image weakens NFC and our attempts to continue to minimize its use because it is far outside expected requirements for a non-free image; I will generally try to figure out if an image is really usable with tweaks (see, for example, the eye image on this article, I'm pointing out a solution that reduces non-free but doesn't change the ability to se the eye mark at the same current resolution), but I really can't see anything in this present case to keep it, and the point here is that while you are providing more evidence, it really isn't helping to support the image's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, I know you mean well and that you're trying to uphold project principles. But with respect, the problem is that you're setting yourself up as, in effect, an editor-in-chief regarding a complex story that you're understandably unfamiliar with (if you search online you will find that story, by the way). And I'm expected to come here to explain myself, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) I'm currently taking time away from writing the article to do that, which is frustrating.
- The problem, I think, is that you're missing the editorial point, and I don't know how to make it clearer without risking BLP violations (there is some more context in this section, in the current second paragraph, which might explain why the Tanner image was promoted over the Smith image). All I can do is repeat that these images have become iconic, and are likely to become even more in the coming months as the sources discuss the implications of the S/Times report. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Understanding why there are likely BLP issues here that you're avoiding, the thing that I'm missing is a direct connection between that section and the Tanner report; I understand the Smith report's connection as it's explicitly stated. If I am understanding this correctly, the Tanner report and image were the public "image" that people were told to look for, but then only this last month, you had two events: the reveal of the Smith report, and that the person who believes he was tagged by the Tanner report coming forward to proof himself innocent. Is this correct? (This might be part of the problem is that where the relavence of the image to meet NFC might not be in the prose it is next to, but I'm also having some confusion in the article ordering, which might help improve that.) --MASEM (t) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The problem, I think, is that you're missing the editorial point, and I don't know how to make it clearer without risking BLP violations (there is some more context in this section, in the current second paragraph, which might explain why the Tanner image was promoted over the Smith image). All I can do is repeat that these images have become iconic, and are likely to become even more in the coming months as the sources discuss the implications of the S/Times report. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep a devastatingly powerful image - says more in one glance than anything written. Crucial to understanding the article...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- We don't use NFC just because an editor believes it is powerful. If sources say it was a powerful image, that's different, but what may be powerful to one editor may be unimpressive to another, and hence the need to have sourcing to back up the image's necessity. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- That assertion is plainly wrong in the face of the obvious. When something is plainly obvious common sense prevails and your argument doesn't hold water, sorry...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong, your claim that a rough sketch of a possible suspect which has since been proven as a red herring as "powerful" is nowhere near common sense for this. We need evidence that such images are powerful, not the word of an editor. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- To the contrary - the image of the little girl being carried as she is being carried in that image is a vivid and powerful picture; should anyone remember seeing that ultimately terrible visage; brings it home to the viewer and now to the reader; no words required...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. It's an artist's reconstruction, there's no emotion in it but intended to help the public possibly find the person in those clothes. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- To the contrary - the image of the little girl being carried as she is being carried in that image is a vivid and powerful picture; should anyone remember seeing that ultimately terrible visage; brings it home to the viewer and now to the reader; no words required...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong, your claim that a rough sketch of a possible suspect which has since been proven as a red herring as "powerful" is nowhere near common sense for this. We need evidence that such images are powerful, not the word of an editor. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete for the following reasons- invalid rationale. "purpose" is not because it cannot be replaced with text alone (which it can) and the source is inaccurate, as the source being referred to only states a book but not the actual Internet location this file was copied from which the meta data clearly shows as Picasa. Also, the artist is not named and "commission" is not a demonstration of work for hire, which requires the artist be named. As for the need to have the image on the article, I will only say that this, it's not actually showing anything that cannot be described with text. The face of the suspect is purposely left out so all you really have is a description of clothing and hair, and the manner in which the suspect was carrying the child etc. I am not sure if all of the info were to be added correctly if this passes NFC criteria, but would support it being kept if all info was added to thr rational per NFC criteria: Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- As a note, I don't think the source concerns are as much of a problem to require deletion due to that factor alone. We want the source present to verify previous publication, even if it may not be the original source. We do want some demonstration of chain of authorship if possible; it is unlikely that the identity of the character sketcher employeed will be named, but we should know what agency they worked for. In other words, yes, these lines in the rationale could be better written, but it's far from the level where deletion is necessary since they could be fixed. Your other issue are completely valid though. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters, but the source is the Kate McCann book. It's also on the Find Madeleine website and has been reproduced by hundreds of newspapers. The image has no market value. The face isn't purposely left out; the witness didn't see the face. That, indeed, is one of the reasons the image is being discussed so much. People are commenting here without understanding the issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The issue at the core is that this image, without any other attributions to its importance, fails NFCC#1, since it a non-artistic representation of an eyewitness account that is exactly described by text; without any other means to show why this image is importance, it is considered replaceable non-free. Now, what you're trying to add to the article is to show that there is more than just this rendition, intangible aspects that cannot be replaced by text or other free imagery that would serve the same educational purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no aspect of this image which cannot be adequately conveyed by text alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep this is an image weighed by law enforcement and discussed in the article. Text can only partially replace the actual image. There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it. The reader benefits from seeing the actual artist's sketch. The argument is only partially true that the image can be replaced by text. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. What exactly does "weighed by law enforcement " even mean? Text, most certainly can replace an artist interpretation of this kind as there is absolutely nothing unique to the image that cannot be described with text. You state: "There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it". No, not when the image is the work of an imagination to begin with. As I said, there is absolutely nothing unique in the image that text alone cannot replace.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a poor choice of words for me to say that it was "weighed by law enforcement ". I mean that the image which resulted from one eyewitness account had significance for a time until a person came forward and said that he believed the person seen carrying a child was in fact himself carrying his own daughter. You are also correct that the image itself is the work of the artist's imagination to begin with. That is a valid point. But every effort is of course made in such endeavors to get an accurate representation. The powers of observation in accordance with verbal description are exploited to the extreme by police artists. We simply are not going to create in the reader's mind the image that you are arguing to have removed from the article. Removing such an image from the article would be to the reader's detriment. Yes, an approximation of the sketch can be conjured up. But the actual sketch is not 100% replaceable by a verbal description of it. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You seem rather reasonable so I will cut to the chase and say that since the artwork is the full result of a verbal description, yes...it can certainly be replaced by text. Now, having said that, I also see no criteria in NFC about being replaceable by text that requires us to delete it for that reason alone. But...NFC is clear, if the rationale is not valid, and all ten points of the criteria unfulfilled, we have an enforcement policy for that which states: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days". I already stated that I would support "keep" as long as the rationale was valid. At this time it is not. If it is fixed (a reasonable request) it need not be deleted and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a poor choice of words for me to say that it was "weighed by law enforcement ". I mean that the image which resulted from one eyewitness account had significance for a time until a person came forward and said that he believed the person seen carrying a child was in fact himself carrying his own daughter. You are also correct that the image itself is the work of the artist's imagination to begin with. That is a valid point. But every effort is of course made in such endeavors to get an accurate representation. The powers of observation in accordance with verbal description are exploited to the extreme by police artists. We simply are not going to create in the reader's mind the image that you are arguing to have removed from the article. Removing such an image from the article would be to the reader's detriment. Yes, an approximation of the sketch can be conjured up. But the actual sketch is not 100% replaceable by a verbal description of it. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale has been adequately explained and is in keeping with policy and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No offense, but the rationale and its accurate completion is not a matter of consensus of editors. Should it not be filled out correctly it may deleted regardless of !votes. If the legitimate advice from editors here is simply ignored, I believe we can conclude that the image violates NFC criteria enough for its deletion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've added more context about the importance of the images (the Tanner image under discussion and the Smith image, which have to be seen and discussed together) to this section. I'm now having to write things in a particular way to fulfill people's view of the non-free criteria. This is the tail wagging the dog, but please consider it so wagged. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, not really - as others have pointed out, prior to these new additions, the image is replaceable with the already-given text description of what the man seen was wearing (to fulfill NFCC#1). Now, what you've added is getting closer, but I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that. Eg, that might explain why the person who was believed seen in the Tanner report came forward to clear himself. I realize that the text is already implicit that because this is the image released to the public on the case, that the public was aware this was the description of the perp, but can there before to talk about how this image affected the public's perception of the case? It also might be the case of article structure here that's making it difficult to see the need, even when I read it aware of the details. Just tossing this out, for example, but maybe the images (both this and the efits of Smith report) should be in the same section, and makes me wonder if the sightings are out of place and should be closer to the Oakley report. It might already say something like "This image (left) based on the Tanner eyewitness account, had be used to publicly identify the suspect in the abduction, but new evidence brought to light in October 2013 has led the police to release thie efits image (right) based on the Smith report as the current suspect", which would be reason to have both images if they were used side by side. I note that one section talks about how widespread Madeleine's pictures were across Britian, who that first image also have had the same? (These to me make your case more concrete for inclusion) --MASEM (t) 18:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- NFCC#1 does not state that if the image can be replaced with text that it MUST be replaced. in this matter, I believe that text alone could satisfy the same thing, but many others do not. This is a matter of consensus, as has always been the case. It is not as cut and dry and there is no criteria that says we must delete the image if it can be replaced with text. Please read that again Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's based on if the text replacement serves the same educational value as the non-free was serving. My point for this is that without context of how significant the image was, the forensics image is sufficiently described visual in an equivalent manner as the text, which would be the same educational purpose. What has been done, though, is that SV's provided better justification that this is more than just a possible perp image, but an image of public significance to this case; while the image's details can still be distilled to the text description, the value of being a public image is not one that can be replaced with text, thus justifying that this likely now passes #1. That's the primary thing that has changed over the course of this discussion. --MASEM (t)
- You asked: "I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that." Yes, that's what the article says. Both images are in the same section, which is the section discussing the sightings. There is then a link to the section about the Oakley report. I am not going to rewrite the article to satisfy a non-editorial need (based on an extreme interpretation of the non-free-content criteria) to have the importance of the images explained entirely in one place. Editorial issues come first. Yes, to answer your final question, the Tanner image was widely published across the UK for many years. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article does not go into the statement that the image was in the public mind, it just says it was released to the public; there's a difference. (There's reasonable expectation that if an eyewitness gives an account of a suspect, that there will be a recreation put out for the public review; I'm trying to figure out how to assure this one is special). So, that said, I found these [1] [2] (and probably a few more) point to that Tanner felt guilt that she could provide enough detail on the face that would have helped identify the man (at which point we know this was a false report, but go with me on this). So I'm getting more positive that the image can be justified. But that led to me this story [3] which seems to be prior to the Tanner's image from an eyewitness; Tanner was later talked to about this image (before the one image in question) and said it was the man that looked like him. There's no mention of this and I'm going to assume that this was later affirmed a bad sighting but there may be more there? I do think there's enough forward momentum in resolvign around this that I no longer think the image should be deleted, but I hope you see what I'm trying to suggest to make this better. (And the rewrite is not just about the images - I find the flow somewhat disjointed, though the chronologically of the events in this case are not straight forward).
- And to note, the call of this image being replaceable by text is not an extreme position - the image is simple enough and lacks artistic merit, so it is up to you to show that the educational value of the image is lost if it is replaced by text; pointing out how it was a significant public image would do that. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- NFCC#1 does not state that if the image can be replaced with text that it MUST be replaced. in this matter, I believe that text alone could satisfy the same thing, but many others do not. This is a matter of consensus, as has always been the case. It is not as cut and dry and there is no criteria that says we must delete the image if it can be replaced with text. Please read that again Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I rarely disagree with Masem's judgement on these matters, in fact I think this is the first time. I find the image justified, though, per SlimVirgin's comments, and I do believe it adds what text cannot, and that similarly it's omission would be detrimental to understanding. No free alternative is likely to become available, and I think it would damage the article to omit this pictorial content. Free content is a glorious aim, but we have accepted fair use and non-free where necessary to also create the best encyclopedia we can, and I think this is certainly one of those cases. Begoon talk 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to note on the general conversation here - I suspect part of the problem is the fact that there might a US vs UK issue here. I get the impression this case would be equivalent to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, which, as a USina, I know was splashed all over the news during the search for her (before the suspect was identified); I don't know how the Ramsey case was shown in the UK, but in considering the reverse I don't consider myself to be an aggressive follower of news but certainly not isolated from it, and yet I was unaware of the McCann case (this seems now more evident when I've gone to sources, seeing most are the big UK media ones).
- As sources state McCann's image was splashed everywhere, and by extension, these profile images; I'm sure those in the UK can attest to what degree that was the case -- but its definitely not clear from the article text as given and a factor lost to those outside the UK. It may be one of those those things that in writing that one may unintentionally forget the audience is not all from the same country and it is easy to overlook that not everyone experiences these things in the same way. Let's say it were issues with Ramsey's article (I'm not saying there are, this is just example), and one happens to be non-free of a suspected perp where the image could easily be replaced with text to describe what is shown. Knowing how much that case was broadcasted around here in the US, I probably wouldn't question the use of the image because I would have known it was used widely in the public news treatment of the Ramsey case, though I would hope and expect someone from the UK or elsewhere to point out the flaws towards WP:NFCC#1, if the photo's public perception wasn't covered in the article.
- The point is that when one is looking at non-free where the importance for inclusion is due to the public's perception or knowledge about the case, one needs to keep in mind that "the public" might be a limited set compared to the readership/editorship of WP, and thus it's likely best to make sure that public's perception is documented to some degree in the article to better justify it's use as an irreplaceable work. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - The issue isn't whether the image is vague or functional for the purpose of identifying the kidnapper. That is missing the point. What matters is that the image itself is now an iconic image for the case, and as such the image itself cannot be replaced by text alone. The image has been widely used by major news sources covering the case: The BBC, The Guardian, The Mirror for just a few examples. Consequently there is no free equivalent. Going through the rest of the NFCC criteria: As covered earlier there's no commercial opportunity for the image as it's already been made widely available without commercial interest. It's used a mimimum number of times. It's been published previously. It's encyclopedic--the image itself is of encyclopedic interest and there is article content directly supporting it. It meets the image use policy. It's used in at least one article. It's significant--I think those familiar with the case who came to read our article would be astonished if the article didn't include it. It's restricted to use in the article. The image description has been updated with the artist, publisher, copyright holder, copyright tag and article. As all the WP:NFCC boxes are checked, so keep.
Zad6804:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)- I just want to note that the problem before this is that there wasn't anything that specifically noted the fact that the image was widely used across the UK for this case; this has now been shown so this reasoning to keep makes sense, but again, this point to my comment above - if you're very familiar with a news story with certain imagery that has national but not international coverage, you can't assume the rest of the world will recognize the images as important - they need to be described as having significant public awareness as is the case now here. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, based on your response I can't exactly tell if you're convinced the NFCC criteria are met now. I want to point out the same image is used outside the UK. In this televised news programme from Australia, they run a series of "the standard McCann images" while a reporter talks; this image is seen at 1:15. Here it appears on a news website based in Spain, used to illustrate "24 hours in photos" covering the day's top news events. Here it appears on a Norwegian news site. Are we in agreement that the NFCC criteria are met?
Zad6814:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)- I'm convinced now; my point is before this discussion and chances in the article, the wide-spread-ness of this particular image and importance, which may have been plain-as-day to any UKian, wasn't apparent via the text given - at the start, to me a non UKian, it appeared to be the routine drawing of a suspect that is usually done with any such case, and one that would fail NFCC#1 normally. The discussion and changes made have convinced me that it was clearly a major image of this story and one of public perception, and thus should be kept, even just considering the sourcing from the UK that show how widespread within the country it was. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, based on your response I can't exactly tell if you're convinced the NFCC criteria are met now. I want to point out the same image is used outside the UK. In this televised news programme from Australia, they run a series of "the standard McCann images" while a reporter talks; this image is seen at 1:15. Here it appears on a news website based in Spain, used to illustrate "24 hours in photos" covering the day's top news events. Here it appears on a Norwegian news site. Are we in agreement that the NFCC criteria are met?
- I just want to note that the problem before this is that there wasn't anything that specifically noted the fact that the image was widely used across the UK for this case; this has now been shown so this reasoning to keep makes sense, but again, this point to my comment above - if you're very familiar with a news story with certain imagery that has national but not international coverage, you can't assume the rest of the world will recognize the images as important - they need to be described as having significant public awareness as is the case now here. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 31 October 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.
Non-Admin Closure: The source from a government website has been identified ([4]) and the DI tags removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:24, 24 November 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.
There is no source for the photos of the coins. Per Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, we also need a source telling where the photos come from. {{Non-free Philippines government}} and {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} only seem to refer to the coins and not to the photos of them. The images therefore seem to violate WP:NFCC#10a. All of the files are also used in other articles for which they do not have fair use rationales. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, as there's some fine etching on the coins, these are 2D representations of 3D copyrighted works, meaning that the photographer's copyright comes into play, and unless the source can be identified, it should be removed - I would presume that we would be able to get a WPian to take photographs and licensing the photos as free - yes, they would still be derivative works, but with the free photo, as soon as the coins drop out of copyright, the photos become free, instead of then having to wait for the unknown photograph's copyright to go away. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I added some "DI" tags to those files and notified the uploader. Let's see what happens. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image now has rationales and no longer fails WP:NFCC#10c. A wise future discussion should be had about the image's actual copyright status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:28, 24 November 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- The label is arguably uncopyrightable, and as long as the user photographed this themselves (a 2d of a 2d image), it should be free. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Inserted two additional non-free use rationale templates so all three articles are documented.Relbats (talk) 21:17, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except Louie Louie and will therefore be removed. A cropped version of the image showing only the logo could potentially be appropriate in the Flip Records article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:33, 24 November 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Added non-free use rationale templates for the two articles in question.Relbats (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- It violates WP:NFCC#8 in two of the articles. It should only be used in Louie Louie. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- For the Richard Berry article, the Flip 45 image is specifically discussed in the text as it depicts the artist's best known work. For the Flip Records article, the image is also specifically discussed in the text as it depicts the best known release by the label. The image also illustrates an example of the label's logo, layout and general appearance.Relbats (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. A quick survey at List of record labels shows dozens of record label articles illustrated with a label scan.Relbats (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:NFC#UUI §6: the file should not be repeated in other articles unless the articles specifically discuss the artwork on the label. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- So is the repetition the issue? Seems reasonable to have an illustration of the Flip label in the Flip Records article as is done in so many other record label articles. Would a different image be acceptable?Relbats (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- If there's no standalone representation of the label (which does seem to be the case for Flip, doing an image search) that would normally be used for identification, you can use the record for this, but you should trim the image to just the Flip part (eg [5]) which would be a new NFC but limited to the key purpose of showing off the label. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- So is the repetition the issue? Seems reasonable to have an illustration of the Flip label in the Flip Records article as is done in so many other record label articles. Would a different image be acceptable?Relbats (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:NFC#UUI §6: the file should not be repeated in other articles unless the articles specifically discuss the artwork on the label. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.globaldogproductions.info/f/flip-logo.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image violates WP:NFCC#10c & WP:NFCC#8 on List of The Fosters (2013 TV series) episodes and should therefore removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:37, 24 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- The use in List of The Fosters (2013 TV series) episodes is a violation of WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:58, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Moved discussion to WP:FFD: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_November_24#File:Death_on_an_Algerian_roadway_-_NYWTS.jpg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:49, 24 November 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 use in Algerian War#French counter-insurgency operations violates WP:NFCC#8. The image is not needed for a readers understanding of the article or that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- This appears to be the only use of the image, so this should be taken to FFD. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#10c from specific article therefore removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:51, 24 November 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.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Algerian legislative election, 1991. That use also violates WP:NFCC#8 since the image is not essential for a readers understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed - yes, they wanted to have an image of each candidate, but this is just not compatable w/ NFCC, and other years have missing pictures for other candidates, so there's no issue of consistency here. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 12 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: The image was re-replaced with the title card per MOS:TV. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:01, 24 November 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.
Someone replaced File:The Magic School Bus title credit.jpg with this DVD cover. I contacted CAWylie (talk · contribs) about this, but he hasn't responded. Should the DVD cover be replaced by the title card? George Ho (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the title credit for the series should be used, because it is arguably more representative of the series itself, or can be replaced by a freely-licensed SVG. It's annoying that we can't look at File:The Magic School Bus title credit.jpg, because current practice requires deletion of the whole image page, instead of just replacing the target image with a "deleted" placeholder image, and revdel'ing the target image, because now we can't look at the NFUR to see if it was ok. --Lexein (talk) 07:55, 13 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: There is not enough information about the author of the image to show that the image passes PD-URAA -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:07, 24 November 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.
Any reason why this wouldn't simply satisfy {{PD-URAA}} per Commons:Template:PD-New_Zealand? Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it does. There doesn't appear to be sufficient information on the image description page to confirm that this image was PD in New Zealand on the date of URAA restoration for New Zealand (January 1, 1996). —RP88 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hm? Are you questioning that the photo was taken before 1946? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, for this photograph to be PD on January 1, 1996 the creator would have to have died before January 1, 1963. We don't have evidence of the death date of the photographer in the description or at the image source. Why are you using 1946? Are you thinking that this work was published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown? I can't find any statement to that effect at the image source. —RP88 (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I must have overlooked something – I thought that Commons:Template:PD-New_Zealand had a restriction similar to that of other Commonwealth copyright tags where only the date of creation for photographs matters. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, for this photograph to be PD on January 1, 1996 the creator would have to have died before January 1, 1963. We don't have evidence of the death date of the photographer in the description or at the image source. Why are you using 1946? Are you thinking that this work was published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown? I can't find any statement to that effect at the image source. —RP88 (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hm? Are you questioning that the photo was taken before 1946? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 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.