Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 5

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm posting this image here, as it meets WP:NFCC in Mildred and Richard Loving so it should not be deleted, but its use appears to be decorative in Miscegenation, Loving v. Virginia, and Interracial marriage. The image is not subject of critical commentary, failing WP:NFCC#8, and any encyclopedic information the image may provide is already adequately provided by text, failing WP:NFCC#1. --Mosmof (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment, use in the first article is similar to common practice here but use in the last 3 is decorative. I note that the rationale's are pretty lame as well; not indicating how it does more than show two people. I would prefer a non-press images but some hunting has found lots of images, all by press photographers. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with both of you. A single image of both of the subjects is useful in the main article, but it is not required in the others. It is important that Jeter was black and Loving white, but that's a given- that's what they're known for. A photo is not needed to demonstrate the fact. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and in particular with the position of J Milburn. Be aware that the current consensus is threatening to the worldwide perspective of the interracial marriage article. For Wikipedia readers abroad who are not acquainted with American history, the background of this couple is not a given, at all. Removal of the picture as such represents the loss of important context to these readers. Currently, the picture provides this context in a manner which cannot be exhibited otherwise for readers of a non-US background, and thus constitutes critical commentary to them. Removal will result in reverting the article to a more American-centric state, and thus in the loss of its overall informative quality for Wikipedia's general audience. The difference is subtle, yet significant, and I am under the impression the other users who have commented have not (yet) recognized this. Malik047 (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Why cannot the reader of the article imagine (as I am now) a black and a white person sitting next to each other? I am not from the US but have no issues with this and I'm fairly sure that most people outside the US of A are similarly able. I read the article and see an image that adds nothing to my understanding. The human mind is quite capable of understanding information without a picture.- Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Following this rationale, our ability to include images in articles should be removed from Wikipedia altogether, simply on the grounds that the human mind is capable of visualization. The issue at hand however is the inherent vagueness of each of your arguments-- any given image in any given article could be argued to fall under them. As an aside, on what do you base the assumption that you are representative of all non-US Wikipedia readers? Malik047 (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with this assessment for Interracial marriage. The significance of the marriage could be adequately conveyed using text, and the image is already prominently displayed in the main article. decltype (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Interracial marriage continues to be a sensitive topic to some circles. It is my hope this has not -in part or otherwise- been a contributing factor to the reached consensus. It would do more than a disservice to the purpose of the website. Malik047 (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by this- the fact that it is a sensitive subject should certainly not encourage the use of more non-free images (but, as a rule, it means that editors will be more willing to fight for their inclusion...) I'm completely with Peripitus- can readers not from the US not imagine a black person sitting next to a white person? What they actually look like is not important. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There is a well established precedent that a non-free image used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article is considered to fulfill Wikipedia’s significance requirement. Used any other way, a non-free image requires a much stronger rationale on how it increases reader understanding. On Mildred and Richard Loving the image is acceptable because it identifies the subject of the article. On the other articles it is not needed for reader understanding. This is not an issue of whether interracial marriage is an important issue; it is an issue of whether the use “would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding,” as the significance criterion requires. —teb728 t c 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Further, interracial marriages (as defined in the articles) still occur and contributors here have cameras. Except for Mildred and Richard Loving then a free image can be created. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Peripitus is right. Since people can still take pictures of interracial couples, no fair use images of the Lovings are allowed on Wikipedia outside of the article on the Lovings because of the way WP:NFCC works. It is a harmful purist mentality that wrote that policy and restricts the use of perfectly good, perfectly legal content, though, and right now, we oughta ignore the stupid rules, do what's best for the project, and keep the images under the expansive legal notion of educational fair use. -- The_socialist talk? 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, you're not proposing we ignore this rule in this one case, you're proposing we rewrite the rules, because you don't like them. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Then it is good that I never asserted that we only ignore the rule in just this one case. By all means, let's set a precedent. -- The_socialist talk? 08:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You want to set a precedent that images just to show what people look like can be used in any article where they are discussed? I don't think you want to set a precedent, I think you want just delete the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Letting editors know that this image is no longer on Interracial marriage, but on its new offshoot, Interracial marriage in the United States. I have reworked the rationale for it appearing there, highlighting the case's status as one of the landmark cases in racial law in the United States, and the extent to which the physical appearance of the plaintiffs relates to the controversies the case exposed. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a strenuous claim at best. A reader does not need to see this image to understand the article, and it is certainly not appropriate as a lead image, where it could be replaced by a free image illustrating interractial marriage generally; perhaps a map showing when it was legalised in each state? J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, see your point. I've removed the image from that page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in Mildred and Richard Loving, remove from all others as failing WP:NFCC#1. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is decorative in Loving v. Virginia- it identifies the plaintiffs, thereby providing critical commentary. Loving v. Virginia would not exist if it were not for the people identified by the photo. I say keep in Mildred and Jeter Loving and Loving v. Virginia, but delete every where else. Liquidluck (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Why not include a non-free image of the judge, too? Why not include a non-free image of the building in which it took place? How the defendants looked is not of great importance to the case, beyond the fact that one was black, one white. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Image removed from Loving v. Virginia. Rettetast (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2009 (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 in a new section.

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Right now this category is fully of poorly licensed crests. All of them are on commons, probably under the wrong licenses, but I am unsure how to proceed. I could just hose them all at WP:CSD#F8 and let Commons sort their end out or they could be all challenged under DFUI WP:CSD#F11. Thoughts? MBisanz talk 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At Commons, tag them with {{copyvio|reason=XXX}} and they will be deleted in due course. I have a similar "their problem, not ours" attitude, but it suddenly becomes our problem when the images start getting used everywhere... J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am a Commons admin so I know that as well. But I was thinking of our ~460 copies of that. I think I will go with WP:CSD#F11 to be safe. MBisanz talk 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear friends, maybe you take so much pleasure in deleting useful content from Wikipedia just for "licensing" reasons, but in this case I think there's no problem: if you checked my license subpage, you would read the authorization letter I received from those site's member (by the way, they are used since ages also in the Italian wikipedia, also without any licensing problem). So please don't remove them. If you can teach me which correct license to use, I would be glad. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you believe that they belong to the website in question anyway? Surely, they would belong to artists/communities in Italy, not a website? J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

--- Problem does not exist in the category. Was this the correct venue for discussing such problems anyway? Rettetast (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2009 (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.

Irish heads of government since 1919

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  Resolved

This aricle seems to have a rather large fair-use gallery of images that seem non-essential to the readers understanding of the topic (note that there are plenty of free images on there too). Thoughts? 2 lines of K303 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All the non-free ones need to go, without a doubt. Removing now. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (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:Abdul_Rashid_Ghazi.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

AFP picture taken without any consent, subject is dead and this was cited as reason for 'fair use' but that in itself doesn't justify using an AFP picture

as per wikipedia:nfc 2.3.3 images its unacceptable to take a photo from a press agencyZaq12wsx (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:dfu}}. Rettetast (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed. File has been deleted. —teb728 t c 07:48, 6 September 2009 (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:Kabul ganesh khingle.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Referred to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 6#File:Kabul ganesh khingle.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a 5th century work of religious art. Hence I do not see why it should be disputed about copy right. More over I understand it is displayed in a public place of worship. --Kajasudhakarababu (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The footnote on the caption says,
For photograph of statue and details of inscription, see: Dhavalikar, M. K., "Gaņeśa: Myth and Reality", in: Brown, Robert (1991), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, Albany: State University of New York, ISBN 0-7914-0657-1.
Does this imply that the uploader's {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} tag is incorrect? Does anyone know about freedom of panorama in Afganistan? It is not listed at Commons:Commons:FOP? —teb728 t c 09:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentThis discussion should be taken at WP:PUI as long as there is no fair use claim. Rettetast (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2009 (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:Kotonoha yandere.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am not sure if this image is really needed to demonstrate the concept, Yandere. (WP:NFCC#8) Also, since the article it appears in is about a concept rather than a specific character, I am unsure of why a free picture could not be made/used? Feinoha Talk, My master 07:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I tagged it with {{dfu}}. —teb728 t c 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed. File has been deleted —teb728 t c 07:49, 6 September 2009 (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:Shelden Celtics.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  Resolved

This image (from the Boston Herald) was being used to illustrate Shelden Williams, but I don't think we can actually use it. I'm sure someone could come up with a free picture of Shelden Williams if they really tried, since Williams is alive and is frequently in the public eye. It may not be possible to find a replacement for the specific moment documented in the photograph, but that moment is not important enough to justify a fair use image of it. It's just Williams holding up a new jersey. Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right; the image is replaceable. The uploader (inadvertently?) removed the {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} tag. I restored it. —teb728 t c 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Image deleted. Rettetast (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (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 in a new section.

File:Global Cool logo2.jpg

Organization (Global Cool) logo uploaded with the claim that the image is in the public domain. It seems very unlikely and there is no indication of such on the organizations web site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the PD claim with a link to their Terms and Conditions page, noting that it has non-commercial and no derivative restrictions. I also added {{non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}}. —teb728 t c 07:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

--- Issue fixed. Rettetast (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (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.

Images used at Jayne Mansfield

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Four questionable photos have been deleted, and one more was removed from the article. The two remaining non-free photos are iconic and supported by critical commentary.

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Jayne Mansfield#The lead image about the specific use of File:Jaynemansfield.jpg in the infobox, and the use of images within the article as a whole. The article currently uses 11 images. 9 include Mansfield and 2 are of her grave. Of the 9 that show Mansfield, 2 are free images from Commons, and the other 7 are included on the basis that their use is fair. Questions have resulted from the discussion.

1. If an unfree image is being used with a fair use rationale, can it be used in the infobox if a free image is available? ie Does the fair use rationale determine where in the article the image can be used?
2. Is there a maximum number of unfree images that can be used in one article?

My opinion is that each image of Mansfield does not show her in such a different guise as to justify using so many unfree images. As the infobox is to provide a basic summary of the person and a basic visual identification, a free image should suffice if one of satisfactory quality is available. From what I've observed in various discussions, including FA and GA reviews, the infobox image is the one on which most weight is placed, because it is the one seen first when accessing the article, and is the one most prominently displayed, and therefore should be free if possible. Does anyone know if there is any policy that specifically mentions this, or is it more a case of "common practice"? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we use images that illustrate the text and the context adequately and appropriately, or should we use random images just because they come free? I'm asking this in lieu of emerging events at the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not suggested using "random images just because they come free". I have said that I believe the infobox image needs to be the free one, simply because the only thing it needs to do is identify Mansfield. A free image will achieve that. If there are compelling reasons to use the unfree images in the article, accompanied by appropriate supporting text, and strong fair use rationale, I have no disagreement with that. I feel you are misrepresenting what is being discussed at the article talk page. None of the unfree images have a strong and specific fair use rationale. They are all fairly weak and generic, and generally support a brief mention in the text, rather than a detailed discussion that would require illustration. The FURs say what the image is, which is self-evident, not the reason why the image is being used, which is not so self-evident. What I did say that nobody has bothered responding to is "Not everything needs an illustration." Your objective should be to make the fair use rationale on the image description page and the discussion in the article, so interlinked and so compelling, that a fool like me can't come along and question it. That's what you're not doing, and that's why I've brought this here so that someone else can look at it impartially. Rossrs (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that none of the non-free use rationales is adequate. The rationales need to make a strong case that its image significantly increases readers’ understanding of the article. (Adequate rationales would be easy for the Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt—and probably impossible for anything else.) Instead these rationales waste verbiage mentioning things like her being dead. (The only point of her being dead is that a free image could not be created, which is moot considering that free images already exist.) —teb728 t c 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this forum is of little value for such a disputed discussion as this, for the forum has no process for reaching a conclusion. The forum is effective only if there is a consensus to keep (which isn’t going to happen with these images) or if an image is a candidate for speedy deletion or for FFD. Indeed, I just may nominate some or all of the images at WP:FFD if only to get closure. Based on my experience with FFD, here is what I think would be the result if they were nominated:
  • The Promises Promises nude shot and the Sophia Loren stunt would be kept as iconic images with ample sourced critical commentary.
  • The lead and Playboy photos would be deleted as undoubtedly being replaceable by the free photos already in the article, and because they do not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article. (But of course the lead image will be speedily deleted long before the FFD is closed.)
  • The album cover would be kept only for use in the infobox of the album article.
  • The Hargitay photo might be kept only for use on his article, assuming no free photo of him exists.
  • The family photo would be deleted because it does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article.
In reply to your specific questions: This is not exactly an answer, but if there is a free image, a non-free image cannot be used simply for identification of the subject, and the use of a non-free image anywhere requires sourced critical commentary (like that which accompanies the Loren photo). There is no absolute maximum number of non-free images allowed in an article, but the more non-free images there are, the stronger the rationale must be for each one. —teb728 t c 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't expecting a conclusion but an opinion from an editor or editors who are looking at it impartially from a non-free content standpoint, rather than an article-specific standpoint. I think your comments are valuable, and I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. I was thinking that each time an unfree image is added to an article it effectively weakens the non-free aim of the overall article, which is somewhat in line with your comment that the rationale must be stronger for each one. Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Same here. Just two observations - (1) I was under the impression that "significance" was a criteria and that was provided for the lead image; (2) I was also under the impression that playmates do have their playboy pictures as historically "significant". Thanks again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Aditya, I think what you are referring to is: (1) There is a community consensus that identification of the subject of an article satisfies the significance criterion, but that doesn’t mean that a non-free image could be used when a free image would serve that purpose. (2) If there is no free image of a woman who was a Playmate, and none could be created (because she is dead), a non-free image could be used for identification. (This is just a corollary of the identification consensus above, and it doesn’t affect JM because there are free images of her that could be used for identification.) Notice, for example, that a Playmate picture is used for (dead) Dorothy Stratten but not for her (living) predecessor nor for Marilyn Monroe, for whom there are plenty of free photos. Notice also how all of the MM photos are free except the first issue of Playboy and Happy Birthday, Mr. President—both highly iconic and accompanied by substantial sourced critical commentary.
I support the identification consensus, but it creates a lot of confusion for editors because the identification rationale seems weak whereas any other use rationale must be very strong.
I sympathize with the sentiment in your first post that Wikipedia’s preference for free images means that a free image is sometimes used when a non-free image would be better. The reason for the policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and non-free images make reuse more difficult. The policy makes editors more motivated in finding free content. —teb728 t c 23:42, 26 July 2009 (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:NFCW-Uniform-ARI.PNG

  Resolved
 – Image is no longer being used in season articles. -Andrew c [talk] 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of this image in the articles about the 2008 and 2009 AZ Cardinals season is seriously questionable. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The use in the season articles is n ot needed. The images should be removed from those articles. Rettetast (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? They are self-created works used to represent uniform images in a given year. Pats1 T/C 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
They are “self-created” in the sense that you (and other users) created the actual drawings. But drawings are copied from the original design which belongs to the Cardinals. Since you don’t own that design, you can’t license Wikipedia to use the image. And that means that it can be used here only under Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. One restriction of that policy is that non-free content is allowed only if its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic. There is a consensus that a drawing of the uniform in the infobox of a team’s main article does significantly increase readers’ understanding by visually identifying the subject of the article. But there is no such consensus for an article about a season. Indeed the uniform does not identify the season; you can’t make a picture of a season. —teb728 t c 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nor can you make a picture of a team, other than a logo. Current unform images are used in team infoboxes. But take the New England Patriots for example; I have separate images for each season (i.e. uniform change) that are used on every individual season article, from 1960 Boston Patriots season to 1977 New England Patriots season to 2003 New England Patriots season. In all, there are more than a dozen unique images. Using these in individual season articles makes a lot more sense than putting them in a logos and uniforms gallery on the main article. I also have a uniform image on Tuck rule game to show the uniforms the teams wore in that game. All of these images are used only in those specific articles. Are you proposing the removal of all of those? Pats1 T/C 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've always felt these uniform images are inappropriate per season. They do make sense in a main article, or in an article specifically about the logos and uniforms of the organization. Per season is excessive and unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? They are capable of changing from season to season and are one of the main identifiers of a team's season. Pats1 T/C 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I generally think this overuse falls into the same category as team logos being splashed on every season, as we have dealt with most recently on college football teams. In particular, I think the use on Tuck rule game is completely indefensible. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If you can't provide photos of the game, the next best option is to use illustrations of the uniforms to provide readers an idea of what the game may have looked like. Pats1 T/C 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the uniform might be relevant is if there were some uniform-related controversy attached to the game. If, for some reason, we can show that it's impossible to find a free image from the game, then the proper non-free replacement would be a photo from the game, not the uniforms. In this article in particular, I could definitely see the value in some photographic description of the "tuck" situation, but it doesn't matter what the quarterback was wearing when he tucked the ball. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could buy showing the uniforms in-use during a particular season on the season pages. But not for games; that's not generally information important to the specific game (if the uniforms were relevant to the particular game, it's possible a good fair-use rationale could be written, but such cases are very very rare). Powers T 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Libertarian Party.svg

  Resolved
 – Overuse has been removed. -Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This non-free logo is currently used on 45 articles. The use in Libertarian Party (United States) should be ok, but I don't understand wy it is needed on all the affiliate state parties, such as Libertarian Party of Arkansas. I note that the democratic and te republican party does not need the logos on the state parties. 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetast (talk • contribs)

I agree. Some (if not most) of those individual organizations have their own specific logos independent (or derivative) of the national logo. Seem similar to sports teams/seasons. National article should clearly have the logo. Each state should not (though having their own state logo for that one article would seem adequate in those cases). -Andrew c [talk] 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Massive, massive overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Shells' Written Roads album from WeThreeRecords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The covers have been removed from all articles, and the discussion here has died out. —teb728 t c 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

These images are all being used in various places on The Shells, WeThreeRecords, and Written Roads. I believe (other than cover1 on the actual album page) these images fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8. There has been some discussion on the talk page but the uploader does not agree that there is any violation and they city the Album fair-use as a rationale for why these images are acceptable. I would appreciate an even-handed review of these images.  ~ PaulT+/C 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I removed all three from The Shells. Someone else beat me to removing covers 2 and 3 from Written Roads and cover 1 from WeThreeRecords. —teb728 t c 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be me. I also tagged the cover for a size reduction, and I believe the other images have been tagged for deletion. I consider the issue resolved, unless someone feels the need to add them back. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the use of covers that is being considered here was consistent with the uses in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] as well as (from what I can tell) the vast majority of the thousand or so images at [12] and [13]. Indeed, it was in part because of the widespread use of such images that I thought that my use must certainly be fine -- it was in accordance with what is already on Wikipedia. Are they ok because of some other exception I'm unaware of? --VMAsNYC (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't care that other crap exists, but secondly, no, it isn't. Those usages are mostly to illustrate the article on the band when the band has broken up. These usages were to illustrate the article on an active band (therefore, the image would be replaceable) and random decoration in an article about an album. J Milburn (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh? The very second example here demonstrates that even if the band/singer is no longer around, there can be other photos -- see [14], where it is just one of a number of images of Nick Drake in an article about him. And repaceablity is just one of the 10 requirements -- how do they meet the critical commentary requirement? And finally, where is this rule written in the guidance?--VMAsNYC (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No, but it can't be replaced with a free image. I admit, as I scroll down the second article you link, it is not awfully clear why those other images are required. And, there is no "critical commentary" requirement- only a requirement that the image significantly increases reader understanding. There is a longstanding consensus that a single image of the band/singer in an article about the band/singer significantly increases reader understanding (the same applies to any biography). As such, if we have no free images and it is deemed that we will not get any, we may use a non-free image in the article header. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So, even though in fact free use pictures clearly exist of Nick Drake (both on his article and on flickr at [15]), because he is dead you (falsely) presume otherwise and allow use of the back cover image of an album on his wikipedia bio. But with the Shells, where I can't find any photo on flickr or Wikipedia, I can't use any album image -- so the article about the band is photo-less? Wouldn't it significantly increase reader understanding to allow use of the band image on the band article? The image is already up (on an article that the reader of the band article might not read), the band article contains critical commentary about the album from Seventeen magazine, and the picture is reduced to a level where there is no risk of commercial re-use. And if I delete the album article, can I then put the image on the band article? And again -- you speak of a longstanding consensus -- but where is this reflected in the guidance?
How in the world are people like me supposed to ferret out what the rules are, if: a) they are not set forth in the guidances (took about long!), b) they are unwritten "its generally accepted" rules, or "longstanding consensuses" and the like that a small coterie is aware of, c) the facts on the ground don't reflect the guidelines or the consensuses (you may not care about the "crap" of what exists, but given the flaws in the guidelines it is not as crazy as you suggest for me to try to figure out the rules by looking at similar articles), and d) the people who are the guardians of those unwritten consensuses only share the facts piecemeal and with a distinct air of inconvenience?
BTW, I read other crap exists. It says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." It also suggested that your terse answer to that wasWP:VAGUEWAVE--VMAsNYC (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fucking expert on any specific case you happen to cite. You have an issue with other uses, go and deal with it, stop moaning at me. I'm not responsible for every image on Wikipedia. Oh, and guess what? Shorten your comments. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Rolling up off-topic discussion, please do not continue it. All further comments should be constructive. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. How's this? Given your tone, you may want to either lighten up or, alternatively add {{User DGAF}} to your user profile.--VMAsNYC (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about both of you calm down? VMAsNYC, J Milburn was just trying to offer input (for which you should be glad—in the past I've listed things here and had them pretty much ignored for weeks) and there's no reason for you to attack him for things outside his control (i.e., the lack of standardness across articles). Maybe both of you should go on to other things and wait for other editors to comment here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh ... I thought I was being funny by responding to his cursing (admins really do that?) and request for terseness by using a style closer to his own. I'm calm, and I don't blame him personally for things outside of his control. I do think this nook of wikipedia is a very byzantine one though that makes it difficult for a new person to know what the rules of the game are, for the reasons stated. It's like an electric fence where nobody tells you where the borders are until you run into them -- and then they use profanity while doing it to make you feel welcome.--VMAsNYC (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're offended by profanity, I advise you to avoid the Internet, whereever possible. I found this conversation somewhat irritating- basically, you asked for help, and, when it was offered, starting ratting on about how you weren't happy with the help, and running around trying to find someone else to give you the help you wanted, while posting big blocks of text and making rather odd assumptions. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that Wikipedia:Civility would provide some protection from profanity. I posted on the album wikiproject because I was seeking advice from people expert in the area of album images. The only reason that I posted here subsequently was because I found (only subsequently) that discussion on the same topic had been opened here. If it was odd for me to assume that there may be free images of pictures of former bands extant, or that it might assist editors new to this area if the "generally accepted understandings" and "longstanding consensuses" that have been shared with me were written into the guidelines, I apologize.--VMAsNYC (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) VMAsNYC,

  • Thank you for pointing out a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake. That bears looking into. You say there is a free photo on his bio, but I don’t see it: where is it?
  • The Shells does not need to go photo-less: You or someone else could take a photo of them and release it under a free license, or you could get their management to release a photo under a free license. (Do I guess correctly that you are connected with them?) Inasmuch as their first album has not even been released yet, there is no urgency to add a photo to the article.
  • You can’t delete the album article unless you can show the album is not notable.
  • Wikipedia’s policy for non-free content is set down at WP:NFCC. Most significantly for you, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” [emphasis added]
  • Wikipedia’s guideline, interpreting that policy, is set down at WP:NFC. Most significantly for you, unacceptable usages images include “Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.”

Hope this helps. —teb728 t c 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The way things are looking now, all these articles will be deleted soon anyway. Once the articles are deleted, the images can go as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:10, 14 September 2009 (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.

Nick Drake photos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Two non-free photos have been deleted - one kept for identification of the article

VMAsNYC points out above a possible problem with the photos on Nick Drake:

Since none of them is accompanied by critical commentary on the photo, two fail WP:NFCC#3. VMAsNYC also points to this flickr image, which is ostensibly {{cc-by-2.0}}. But that may be too good to be true, for the same flickr uploader has other content at here that seem to be copyvios.—teb728 t c 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I FfD's all three with the recommendation that the promotional photo be kept and the two album photos be deleted. Does anyone know what to do about possible copyvios on flickr? —teb728 t c 07:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a page on commons (Commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images) that deals with this, and you can list questionable flickr users there. As for reporting the images on Flickr, I am not familiar with those mechanisms. -Andrew c [talk] 17:45, 12 September 2009 (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:JJam.JPG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
File deleted

I think the FUR for Michael Jordan is fine, but I dispute the FUR for David Falk. I don't think this meets NFCC #8, which requires the media to contribute significantly to understanding. Powers T 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO it is if anything even less significant in the Jordan article than in the Falk. But it is not needed for reader understanding in either. —teb728 t c 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I FfD'd it. —teb728 t c 06:43, 21 September 2009 (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:Muralbondgirls.jpg

  Resolved

This is on Commons, but I thought I'd discuss it here first since I don't know how to handle Commons fair use discussions. This is claimed to be the uploader's own work, but in fact, isn't it just a moshing together of copyrighted images? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No. All four of the images are available under free licenses. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. Close this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Zachman Framework Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The image, whatever its copyright status, is on Commons. —teb728 t c 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This image:

File:Simple_example_Zachman_Framework_double_row.jpg

is claimed to be in the public domain as follows: "This image is a work of a United States Department of Veterans Affairs employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." However the image is simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman. I question whether simply because a US federal employee includes a copyrighted image within a presentation that they create, that this suddenly makes a copyrighted image in the public domain. I suggest that if this is viewed by Wikipedia as a standard practice, all that is needed to take a copyrighted image and place it in the public domain, is to have a US federal employee paste that image into a presentation and to publish it. I doubt that would pass a legal review. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The original work, even if used in a presentation that was put together by an employee of the federal government, can be encumbered with rights of the original copyright holder. The public domain assertion applies only to work created by the government, as opposed to used by the government. No rights transfer happens just because the federal government uses something that is copyrighted. It has to be created by the federal government. This wasn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: The assumption by SunSw0rd that this is "simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman" is simply not not true, as we are discussing here. There is a lot more to it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2009 (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:Psyren-char.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted by PUF discussion. —teb728 t c 09:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a Scanlation. Non-free image which is an illegal derivative work. I'm pretty sure it should be deleted. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that it's not a free image; the only question is whether it qualifies for fair use. Right now it has no good non-free use rationale and doesn't seem to be adding much to the article, so I would say probably no. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so do I just wait and it gets deleted by an admin now? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (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.

Bill Gold

  Resolved

Article about a graphic designer. I removed all the non free movie posters from the article, but was reverted. Are all of these images necessary in an unreferenced biography about a living person? Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them again. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
One or two might be acceptable to exemplify sourced critical commentary. But the way they were used was purely decorative. —teb728 t c 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay to remove, in this instance, I think, because they are available at the film pages themselves; though there is a case for showing some together, to allow readers to compare the wide diversity and variety of style in one place - and also for readers who are only going to print out or reproduce one article, not dozens.
But what is not okay is the amount of valuable text which has been removed from the article in the process. Please be a bit more careful in future, when there is significant material in captions which should not be lost, to make sure this gets retained in the article. Jheald (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GG-Jeanne Sauve.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Portrait has been removed from all uses except the biography

This non-free image of a deceased individual is currently five articles.

I dispute that they can be used in any of the articles except Jeanne Sauvé. Some of these articles use a lot of non-free images and should be checked. Rettetast (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the image at 1993 in Canada seems superfluous. What is one to use for the other pages, though? The subject of the image has been dead for 16 years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed from 1993 in Canada but added to United States presidential visits to Canada.

I agree that the photo is acceptable only in her biography. In Governor General of Canada the photo decorates a mention of the fact that she was the first female Governor General. In the others photo is used in lists--esentially galleries. —teb728 t c 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you say "decorate" when you mean "illustrate"? The former implies complete inessentiality, while the latter has purpose, which the image clearly does on Governor General of Canada; unless you'd like to explain how the first female Governor General of Canada is insignificant. As for the lists: again, you make it sound as though the images are pretty decoration; yet, surely so many lists of people on Wikipedia employ images as illustrations, not simply to add some colour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that she was first female Governor General of Canada is highly significant, and its significance is well expressed in the text. The use of the photo, however, is completely inessential. To put it differently, WP:NFCC#8 (part of Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content) says, “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.” If this photo were removed from the article, reader understanding that she was the first female Governor General would not suffer in the least. And if a reader wanted to know what she looked like, they could click on the link to her biography. As for the lists, the use there is also completely inessential: Everything that readers need to understand is expressed in the text, as is illustrated by the fact that understanding of the list of Governors General does not suffer in the least from the lack of an image of her predecessor, Edward Schreyer. —teb728 t c 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clearly valid only in her biography. What she looks like is of no importance to the other articles. For the record, if she features in United States presidential visits to Canada, my money is on there being a free image somewhere... In any case, removing all spare usages now. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems there are a lot of misused non-free images in these articles... Doing my best to clean them up now... J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've done my best. File:Jean-CinC.jpg and File:Jean-Oath.jpg could do with some further review. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You've done your best at making a mess of List of Governors General of Canada. All the images will have to go now as a result of this policing; it's near on impossible to find any free pictures of the subjects you deleted, and it's ridiculous to have so many blanks in what used to be an otherwise a very complete list. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't include non-free album covers in lists and discographies, but we do allow non-free album covers in articles about the album. Non-free content is used minimally on Wikipedia, per WP:NFCC. I believe this is similar. While it sure would be pretty and illustrative to have all those images in such a list, they simply are not necessary, when someone could click a link to the article on these individuals and see the image there. Non-free images have to relate to the topic at hand, and an individual image of one person usually is too specific for the general topic of lists (which is why a general non-free cast or group photo is normally appropriate for a "list of characters..." sort of article, but non-free images for each character is not). While these restrictions may deteriorate the quality of the article in some regards, it helps keep Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (surely, we could be even better if we explusively used non-free text from Britannica and Encarta, and non-free images from Corbis and Getty... but in addition to being unethical and illegal, it just isn't Wikipedia). -Andrew c [talk] 01:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of the theory behind fair use; I have had to deal with similar matters before. But, that experience also showed me that the validity of fair use rationales depends entirely on the personal interpretations of the reader. Hence, arguments for the use of an image in a certain article can be considered sound for months - even years - before one person comes along and declares them invalid, and months of work has to subsequently be tossed in the trash. Randomness with disappointing consequences. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"Considered sound" and "not dealt with" are very different things. There's no need for any interpretation here- this use was invalid, end of story. Rather than including the images as part of the table, perhaps format them something akin to this, that way the fact a few of the entries are unillustrated is less obvious. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"End of story" to you; and that's my point, of course. Certainly there are other ways to illustrate the page, but only the way it was would justify the amount of effort I put into collecting and/or uploading and then sizing all those images for completeness and consistency; a way that stood for a long time - "not dealt with", i.e. silence = consensus - and was employed elsewhere. I've the feeling that my protestations here are of little consequence, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you put so much work into what was ultimately a futile effort, but our policies on this topic are clear. We can't all be everywhere at once, and absence of comment is, unfortunately, not indicative of consensus. As you can see, it's not just one person here who disagrees with you on whether these uses are allowable under our non-free media policies, but several. That is a consensus, or at least the start of one. Again, I'm sorry for the loss of your effort, but we have these rules for some very good reasons. Powers T 15:24, 14 October 2009 (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:Shamrock wwf bigger.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image of pro-wrestler Ken Shamrock used in the infobox accompanying the pro-wrestling-section of his article. There is already a free image of the subject, and while he is technically playing a character in this non-free one (which is what the rationale is based on) I don't think that warrants its use. The image also differs from the free image in that it shows a younger version of him which I guess could also be an argument, but I don't really think that is sufficient. The rationale given is "It is used to provide critical commentary on the character Shamrock portrayed in the content of the television program, and is also used to illustrate how the organization portrayed his character as intimidating, angry and fearless.". --aktsu (t / c) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not immediately obvious why it's needed and lacks a real rationale, so I have nominated it for deletion. If someone wants to make a case that it is needed, they are welcome to. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (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.

Cambridge Antibody Technology#Design and Marketing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
They all have been deleted as orphaned. —teb728 t c 06:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this here for additional reviewer's input... In this section there are 17 (if I counted right :) non-free annual report covers. As the article is about the group of companies, it would seem to me that one or two of the most unique report covers would be sufficient to get the idea across. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them all. The design of the front cover of an annual report is not important to the article. If it is important that have to be backed up by sources. Rettetast (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2009 (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:Surrealistic-images01s.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
File was deleted. —teb728 t c 06:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Photograph by Jerry Uelsmann, one of a number of files linked from Neosurrealism which claim that permission is granted from a screensaver website which doesn't list clear copyright information; possibly an effort to drive traffic to the screensaver site. Note that Uelsmann's wikipedia article itself has no images, which points to a lack of free images. I commented out the image code at Neosurrealism - look at old version for all image links.--Larrybob (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as lacking permission. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking into the others, I have tagged some, and added the George Gries back to the article- after checking the OTRS message, I can confirm they are legitimate. I'm happy to give further details if required. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2009 (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:Question Time British National Party controversy top 5 newspaper headlines.PNG

  Resolved

deleted.Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this image justified in the article Question Time British National Party controversy? MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The article can certainly reference these stories, but the non-free images (technically 5 of them) are not required to understand the image of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete This picture has been moved now out of the lede to the bottom of the article page to remove it from view (hide it), it is not needed on the article at all, are we to have a picture like this on a lot of articles? Can I make one for the polanski article, no of course I cant, this picture is in need of deletion, or at least nominating for deletion asap. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not needed. I've removed it and tagged it for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Masem is an admin, if he thought it was speediable at the time of the above comment, he should have done it himself, which he could have under policy. I am not accepting a back door deletion by simply making it an orphan and therefore not having to make the case it does not satisfy the NFCC. Take it to IFD. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm also an admin- so what? And no, I'm not going to leave it languishing in the article indefinitely. You think there's a case for it, make it here, and stop wikilawyering. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article, front pages of those newspapers are not designed to be informative, they are designed to titillate and to excite and to sell newspapers, which is not what we are here for. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Newspaper front pages are one of the most iconic form of images that exist in our culture. I am sorry if their actual content offends you, but funnily enough that's got nothing to do with fair use claims in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew you were an admin. Delete it then, I know from bitter experience that you aren't going to be interested in any rationale I would offer, so I'd rather not waste the time if that's alright with you. Especially when we have this frankly ludicrous rule that you are free to edit war over subjective interpretations. You have the gaul to accuse me of wikilawyering, yet the only way you choose to go about removing the image is to deliberately orhpan it and then edit war. I constantly wonder why we have these fair use issue tags, they are utterly pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been an admin for two and a half years, and it's been pretty uncontroversial... The fact you don't like our non-free content guidelines doesn't mean that no one does. Image deleted as per your request... J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Milburn, you are utterly shameless. Deleting it as an 'author's request'. Nice. In your own words, 'Ifd is dead'. You should really ponder one day why that is. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Delete it then" sounds like a request to me... J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I didn't say I didn't like the guidelines. I stopped paying attention to the actual instructions of our various maintenance templates regarding nfc when it became clear that, such as in this case, they actually mean nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And just to be clear, that refers to the wording and instructions of nfc related maintenance templates, in case you are about to twist my words and imply I don't pay attention to the wording and the principles of the nfcc, which I do. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
File was speedied under F3 —teb728 t c 06:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DoesFile:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg qualify as a non-free image for the Star Air Service article? There is also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-free Image license. Any and all advice is appreciated.Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS has approved the image for fair use.Smallman12q (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
OTRS merely confirmed that the copyright owner has given permission for use on Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth). That doesn't mean that it doesn't have to conform to WP:NFCC, nor does it indicate that it does conform. In fact, it fails WP:NFCC#1 (because whatever its encyclopedic purpose is supposed to be, free text could undoubtedly serve the same purpose), WP:NFCC#3b (because its resolution is way to high for a non-free image), and WP:NFCC#8 (because the article would be perfectly understandable without it). —teb728 t c 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) FFDd. —teb728 t c 07:44, 28 October 2009 (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:Forthoodshooting.jpg

  Resolved

I'm not all that familiar with wikipedia policy, but it seems very iffy to call this map from msnbc a historically important news image for an event that just happened hours ago. Bawolff (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. One can't steal MSNBC graphics to report on ongoing news events and call it fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Chervona Ruta (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All the screenshot have been deleted except the one used in the infobox. —teb728 t c 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

I have removed most of the images. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Cherovanrutarotaru.jpg is used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Video cover art or a poster would be better suited for this function. Lacking that, this screenshot is marginally acceptable. But its rationale ("to illustrate the article") is inadequate; illustrating an article is never an adequate rationale for non-free image use.
The others (see use in this version) are clear violations of WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). The gallery of non-free images is particularly bad; non-free images are never acceptable in a gallery. —teb728 t c 20:31, 8 October 2009 (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:Sofiarotarudushaposter1.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The poster is used as a lead image to identify the article, an acceptable use; the other images have been deleted. —teb728 t c 20:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

As the lead image, I'm inclined to say it's ok- I did remove the non-free gallery and the DVD cover, and I also cropped the other image so that it can now be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the fact that WP:FILMNFI and also WP:NFC#Images call for critical commentary, there is a consensus that a non-free image in the infobox fulfills WP:NFCC#8 by identifying the source of the article. The same applies posters used the same way in following sections.
With regard to this version of the article, however: In the presence of the poster, the video covers, File:SoulDVDsofiarotaru.jpg and File:Soulfilmsofiarotaru.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3. And the gallery images File:Rotaruboyarski.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskiperform.jpg, File:Rotaruboyarskirehearsal.jpg, and File:Rotarusoul.jpg fail WP:NFCC#3 (using multiple non-free images where one would be adequate) and WP:NFCC#8 (not significantly increasing reader understanding). —teb728 t c 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
These images do increase the significance of the article, as they clearly show the first Soviet music video filmed during the movie. I think an appropriate text caption should be inserted...--Rubikonchik (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2009 (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:Dniestrmelotitle.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Poster is used to identify article on film, an acceptable use. —teb728 t c 10:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Looks OK to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2009 (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:Wherehaslovegonesofiarotaru.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Cover is used to identify article on film—an acceptable use. —teb728 t c 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (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.

Port Militarization Resistance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All images have been removed from the article. —teb728 t c 09:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Article about an anti war organization in the US that was started in 2006. The article uses 9 different non-free images, with the rationale that the images are historically important. However I can not see any critical commentary on the images themself. Any views on how to handle this articl. Rettetast (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them all as lacking rationales and adding little to the article. It's possible one or two of them are legitimate (though I doubt it), so I'm all ears if someone wants to defend them. This article is exactly the reason that stupid "non-free historical image" rationale was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (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.

Little People

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Gallery images have been deleted. —teb728 t c 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article about a toy. I removed some of the non-free images in this article and was reverted. Do we need nine different non-free images to show how the toy looks like? Rettetast (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I FfD'd the gallery images, which IMO is the way to go instead of edit warring with people who insist on keeping unacceptable images. —teb728 t c 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The FFD has closed, and the article is down to 4 non-free images. Seems to be resolved, unless someone thinks some of the remaining images need review. -Andrew c [talk] 21:46, 6 November 2009 (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:Stars my destination vintage.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the third cover of the book in question used in the article The Stars My Destination. While the use of the first edition cover is standard, and a case could be made for the SF Masterworks edition, the use of this image strikes me as decorative and excessive. Specifically, this fails to meet the requirements for cover art specified in WP:NFCI criterion one: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:45, 19 October 2009 (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:Bathurst_van_accident.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted as orphaned. —teb728 t c 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fair use rationale for this image doesn't make sense to me, and I think it makes more sense in the long run to request a free copy of the image from Transport Canada. Kirk (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, unless permission can be obtained. It's just decoration, the image doesn't appear to be the subject of any critical commentary in the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: According to Transport Canada on non-commercial reproduction: "Information on this site, other than government symbols, has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the (Applied Title of the Institution). We ask only that:
  • Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • The (Applied Title of the Institution) be identified as the source department; and
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the (Applied Title of the Institution).[16]

This very well may be an image we can use it just doesn't have the right licensing. Further discussion is needed as I'm not the most up on copyright law. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Hi - Wikipedia does not fall under non-commercial use, so this photo would fall under commercial use (see WP:NFC for more info). If you read a little further on the transport canada site, they have the information on how to request permission to use the content, and you can use WP:BRP as a template for the request.
Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_content and the template Template:Non-free with NC, thinking those might help but I can't really find any of the existing fair use templates which apply here. It doesn't help the article does not discuss the photo at all.Kirk (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (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:IWASWorldWheelchairandAmputeeGames-Men's200m-T42.pdf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The pdf has been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-free file which isn't an image (it's a PDF) and this isn't being used in any article, per se. This is why I have tagged it for 7 day speedy deletion as being orphaned. However, there is another side to this story. The uploader has told me the file IS being used, as a reference in a footnote in an article. It was my understanding that we do not upload sources to Wikipedia (freely licensed sources can go to Wikisource). I figured we could just cite the document in question, without necessarily uploading or even linking to it. However, the situation is complex as it isn't clear how published this information was in the first place. I'm a little wary of WP:NOR, but that is besides the point. What I want to know is, does WP:NFCC cover instances such as this? Can use upload non-free content that is being used for sources? See our user talk discussion for more background. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Er, no. Either it's used or it isn't. Footnoting a link to it doesn't make it used. Furthermore, if it's questionable as to whether it's been published before, we shouldn't be publishing it ourselves (that runs afoul of fair use law on prior publication). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it is just a text table, it is also replaceable. Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source (nor I think is Wikisource). So let's see; it fails NFCC 1, 4, 7, and 8. —teb728 t c 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hi, I'm the uploader. I don't quite understand the replaceability point – in what way is it replaceable because it is a text table? I know that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but the point is that this information was provided by a reliable source (the Chinese Taipei Paralympic Committee) which agreed for the document to be uploaded to Wikipedia and used on it. I am not sure why the OTRS reviewer felt that the document was not properly released under a free licence – I had asked the Committee if they had any objections to the document being released under the CC-BY and GFDL licences and they said no. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply It is replaceable because the table below (for example) is a free copy of the first table in the pdf, and the rest of the pdf could be replaced in the same way. The OTRS reviewer determined that it did not have a free license because (as you said) the committee “agreed for the document to be uploaded to Wikipedia and used on it.” A free license is permission that allows reuse by anyone for anything. But even if the committee had licensed it under a free license, it would not be useful for verification because being hosted on Wikipedia nobody can tell that it actually came from the committee.
Final Round
Rank Athlete(s) Lane Points
1 Mcfall, John GBR 3 26.2
2 Popow, Heinrich GER 4 28.51
3 Gnanendra Singh IND 5 28.99
—teb728 t c 08:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Should be deleted. PDFs aren't really supposed to be uploaded, and it's not necessary here--if the only purpose is for citing a source, it's perfectly fine to cite an off-wiki source without linking to it. (Look at Chinese classifier#Bibliography, that's a featured article and almost none of the sources are available online.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:06, 7 November 2009 (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.

Dance Premier League

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All the images but the one used for identification have been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This fairly new and fairly short article contains thirteen images, all of which claim fair use.

It seems excessive to me—what do y'all think? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the logo gallery. The main logo should be ok. Rettetast (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for my accidental reversion. This was due to the watchlist not being very iPhone-friendly; using the touchscreen to enlarge the text results in pressing buttons you don't want to be pressed. Thank God the 'block' function has an extra step before activating. The JPStalk to me 22:46, 9 November 2009 (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:Enchanted Forest 01.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image has been deleted. —teb728 t c 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this fails NFC #1 for the article Enchanted Forest Water Safari. Why use a copyrighted postcard when someone could walk up and take a free picture at any time? (Note: even if the statue of Paul Bunyan is copyrighted, a free picture of the copyrighted statue is still preferable to a copyrighted picture of the copyrighted statue.) Powers T 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the photo quality gained through 40 years of technological advancement. Where's the family station wagon? This photo would be acceptable if the postcard was notable enough to merit its own article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion as replaceable, which it clearly is. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (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:Robert Enke Hannover 96 Death.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted as orphaned. —teb728 t c 09:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This image is currently used in the article about Robert Enke, a footballer who committed suicide on 10 November. It is my belief that the image's use in that article is in contravention of non-free content usage criterion 8, since the image does not serve to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and its omission would not detract from understanding. In my opinion, this image should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, far better would be to find a good free image from outside the stadium similar these (but I think these are not usable unless the owner releases them) chandler 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The image fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not contextually significant enough to add anything to the article that the prose can not convey. ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this screenshot is not copyrightable and thus PD, for it is just some text plus a textlogo. The reason the screenshot should be removed from the article is not lack of license but a total lack of encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
100% agreed with teb728. What exactly is the point of this image and how does it improve the article in any way whatsoever? howcheng {chat} 06:26, 12 November 2009 (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:HCastListingNew.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Image was deleted. —teb728 t c 09:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An image showing the extended cast, and their interrelationships, for the Malaysian drama Hero (MBC).

At the moment the use rationale is a low-quality cut-and-pasted bit of boilerplate, which has led to it being tagged {{dfu}}. But it seems to me that, as an official presentation of the ensemble cast, it is the kind of image that we actually encourage under WP:NFLISTS, as adding to reader understanding of the topic.

I therefore think, with an appropriately re-written rationale, an NFCC #8 call could go either way.

But that is not really the issue I wanted to bring up here. What I wanted views on is that this appears to be a translation of a studio publicity image. If that were the case, how would that affect its standing here?

The two images can be seen here, with what appears to be the original above. As can be seen, the lower image is a faithful copy, but with the information rendered so that it can be understood in English (thus communicating to an English audience the style and meaning of the original).

Now I am aware that there are some people who will just argue to get anything they can deleted. But if we try to take a step beyond that, would there be a case for keeping an image like this because the photographic elements are essentially directly those in the montage shot created by the studio, with just the text elements translated. What are the issues here? Jheald (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a very good point. This would be pretty much the perfect image to illustrate a character list. I don't think it's as appropriate in the main article on the show, but for a character list, yes. I don't think there is any problem in us translating the text- what's your concern in that regard? J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the cast photos are too small to be of much value (and not really needed anyway). But without the photos the chart could be replaced with free substitute. —teb728 t c 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If you click the image you can see the cast more clearly, but I can see them on the lain page as well. The photos can't be replaced with a free substitute because there aren't any free images for this drama available. All work was produced by MBC. I think these charts are a great/easier example of showing the connection between each character. Then if the viewer can go in and read the details of the character in the character description. InkHeart♥ 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the photos are not replaceable and that the chart is useful. But the chart doesn’t need the photos to be useful. The names are sufficient to identify the characters, and the chart shows their relationships. So a free chart could be created with no photos that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. BTW, when I said the cast photos were too small to be of value, I meant on the full 581 × 656 pixel resolution chart. —teb728 t c 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the chart could be recreated without photos, as it would still be derivative of a non-free image. Powers T 13:35, 23 November 2009 (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:Postal.jpg

Delete: This is a recreation by same editor of a previously deleted image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 11#Postage stamp on Jain Acharya Tulsi.jpg. The same issues apply: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1988 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also the fair use rationale is incomplete and shows no purpose. ww2censor (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice to re-creating an image of this stamp providing the image is immediately used in accordance with fair-use images. Remove from Acharya Tulsi as not within fair use guidelines, then Speedy delete this image in a week as an unused free image. Also, if File:Postage stamp on Jain Acharya Tulsi.jpg is the same as this image then {{db-g4}} applies. G4 does not require a 7-day waiting period, but the image should stay up until its use in Acharya Tulsi is settled. If it is a re-upload of the same image by the same editor then the uploader needs to be reminded of WP:SPEEDY, WP:G4, and WP:Deletion Review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.  fetchcomms☛ 21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File speedy-deleted using CSD:G4 - upload of material previously deleted by way of a deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (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.

History of graphic design

{{resolved}} This article is a glorified gallery/slide show. And it is peppered with non-free images. For some topics, there are 4 non-free images illustrating the exact same point. And it isn't even clear to me why we need so much non-free imagery. Many of the non-free images have little relation, if any, to the the text of the article. It seems like massive image abuse. I wanted to get other opinions on this, and perhaps solicit help cleaning up the article's images.-Andrew c [talk] 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a mess. I'm going to see if I can FFD some of the images. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of them are likely to be {{PD-old}} actually and are mistagged as non-free. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Months ago, I removed all the obvious non-free content. There are still some antique playing card images that are surely PD, but are currently tagged as non-free. I consider this matter resolved. -Andrew c [talk] 15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos

{{discussion top}} This list article includes 11s non-free image. Most are covers of Videos and DVDs. My removal of all the covers was reverted. Is it necessary to show the covers in this list. Is it comparable to discographies where we don't allow images of each item. Rettetast (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed and watchlisted. Clearly abuse. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I (author of the Glen Campbell videos article) have been in debate with J Milburn and Hammersoft for more than a week now. We thoroughly disagree whether the use of non-free images on this page is violating the non-free content policy and guidelines or not (see User_talk:J_Milburn#Glen_Campbell_videos and User_talk:J_Milburn#Continuous_restoring.2Fdeleting_of_links_to_images_for_Glen_Campbell_videos if you have a lot of time). To make a shortcut to the current status of the discussion: Hammersoft told me he had a similar discussion about the same subject which resulted in the removal of the images, based on the principle: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I remarked that this cannot be found in any current policy or guideline. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT). The reply of J Milburn and Hammersoft was that non-free content policy can never cover every type of article. My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on... This does not answer my question why the images have to be removed. Who can shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I thought (and expressed at J Milburn's talk page), you want your article to be in a special class of articles, all on its own. Yet, it isn't. It's a videography. Pure and simple. If these videos are so insignificant that they are not notable for an article of their own, there's little argument to be made that they deserve to have the covers on a summation article, such as this. This isn't how we work. Even if we did allow this use because it's supposedly not a summation article or videography, there'd still be what, 11 fair use images on this one article? Serious overuse. We target articles with over ten on a regular basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was trying to paraphrase you, Hammersoft, when i said "My article happens to be one of those types of articles that policy did not anticipate on..." (see Milburn's talk page), but that apparantly wasn't clear due to my limited knowledge of the english language. My fault. You actually talk of zillions of types of articles that are not covered by policy... Just my luck my article apparantly happens to be one of them! Next, I already replied on 1) your claim this article is the same as any other videography (it isn't because besides a mere listing of the releases it also contains sections with detail information on those releases) and 2) the guideline which says that notability determines the use of non-free images (there isn't such a guideline). What's new to me is the fact that you target articles with over 10 non-free images. You almost make it sound like no matter what the policy and guidelines allow or don't allow, 11 fair use images is just too much. However, policy only speaks of over-use if one item can convey equivalent significant information, which isn't the case here. Or would 1 picture showing let's say 3 front covers be better than 3 separate pictures of those front covers in your view? Lumdeloo (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is blatantly obvious to me that you are an extreme literalist vis-a-vis policy here. Unless the policy explicitly states "in the Glen Campbell videos article, no fair use images of covers are allowed" you will presume that policy does not apply to your special little article. Myself and two other editors have tried exceptionally hard to educate you on this matter. You absolutely refuse to be educated and insist that we're all wrong, every last one of us, and you are right. I'm fed up with you. Over and over and over again we keep showing you how you are wrong, and you absolutely fail to get it. NOBODY can show you how you are wrong; because in your mind it is absolutely impossible for you to be wrong. So I'll state what was said on J Milburn's page; restore the images to the article at your own peril. It's vandalism, and you know it. Your move sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I appreciate you trying hard to educate me on this subject. However, if you would actually address the points I bring forward, we probably could have ended this discussion a lot sooner. The discussion goes something like this:
  • You: the article is a discography and therefore fails WP:NFC#Images 2
  • Me: I have asked for examples what a discography article is in your opinion. Without exception, your examples only list the releases but don't describe them in detail. An significant difference in my opinion. What does the guideline say? Two relevant points: WP:NFCI#Images point 1 and WP:NFCI#Images_2 point 1. Front cover art is allowed only the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Not allowed is an album cover as part of a discography, as per the above. To me it's obvious that this means that you can use front covers when you provide critical commentary on the album/video/DVD, but you cannot use front covers in discographies because there you don't provide critical commentary on the listed albums/videos/DVDs.
  • You: your article fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, all the images have to be removed.
  • Me: I cannot use one item (image) to identify 11 separate objects so the article doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3. If one front cover is considered to significantly increase readers' understanding of an article describing one album/DVD/video, why is this suddenly not the case when one merges several of these articles into 1 new article? (I have also given additional reasons why images in this case significantly increase readers' understanding, but I didn't get a reply on that either.)
  • You: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article."
  • Me: there is no such guideline.
  • You: I repeat, you will not succeed. That's just how it works around here. You're an extreme literalist. Restore the images at your own peril. Your move, sport etc. etc.
  • Hammersoft, is it any wonder I keep believing I'm right? You never give any real answers at all! Lumdeloo (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This use of cover art fails WP:NFCC#8: “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.” Although there is a consensus the use of a non-free image in an infobox to identify the subject of the article does increase reader understanding, this consensus applies only to that restricted case: It does not apply to non-free content within an article to identify a subtopic. Unfortunately many people are confused by the acceptance of non-free content with the seemingly weak rationale of identifying the subject of an article. But any other use requires a very strong rationale: the article almost certainly would have to have critical commentary on the cover art such that showing the cover was necessary to understanding the article. (The guideline does not explicitly mention videography, but a videography is essentially the same thing as a discography; and WP:NFC#Images 2 says explicitly that an album cover as part of a discography is not an acceptable use.)
    Having said all that, a content dispute is never vandalism. If Lumdeloo uploaded the covers again, the remedy would be to nominate them at WP:FFD. Having seem many similar cases there, I am confident that they would be deleted. And having failed FFD, future uploads would be subject to speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • teb728, thanks for your answer. You start off saying that the article fails to meet non-free content policy. However, then you immediately switch to consensus (not policy or guidelines) to prove your point. What's the official status of consensus when it has not ended up in policy or guidelines? Secondly, I already addressed the question whether this article is a discography or not (see above). What is wrong with my line of thought there? Thirdly, I agree that what goes for a discography, also should go for a videography. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When someone willfully violates policy, in full knowledge that s/he is doing so, it is vandalism. Lumdeloo knows full well what the policy is. He's been directed to the policy, the guideline, categories hosting similar articles and prior discussions. Not one of those resources has supported his conclusion. Just because someone is in disagreement with a policy does not mean that when they violate it, it is somehow not vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • <Sigh> I am not in disagreement with policy. I am in disagreement with you. I have argued why I think policy and guideline allow this kind of use. I have argued why those "similar" articles are not so similar at all. And we both agreed that prior discussions are not the same as guidelines or policy. Are you ever going to address these points, or are you going to call me "sport" again? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I have repeatedly said, I'm not going to keep debating this with you. I will, teb's objections not withstanding, treat the reinclusion of these images as vandalism. You know full well what the policy is. Violate it at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you don't know what the policy is. It seems you're confusing prior discussions with actual policy. I'm still hoping there are people around here who can distinguish between the two. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So far, not one soul has come to your defense. Odd, that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't expect anyone here to come to my defense. If only someone would give me a substantial reply... I can hope, can't I? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • <de-indent> You've been given multiple substantial replies. You just don't agree with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • True, at a certain point you did provide some useful background information. But when it became clear you were relying on your own made-up guideline ("if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article") instead of actual policy, you started chickening out. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arb Break

I know I've proposed the idea of allowing, in such list articles, the non-free cover image for identification of subtopics which would otherwise have complete full articles, albeit short, about them if the subtopics were written about individually, but for editorial decisions on comprehensiveness, have been keep as a single article. I don't propose the Glen Campbell videos above quality, but I recently encountered Music of the Katamari Damacy series which I do consider as falling under the exception for multiple covers in a "discography", as reasonably, each of those albums would stand by themselves in an article, but makes a better comprehensive article put together.

I would like to know if others believe this is the case, as this would further help define the dividing line when discographies/etc. can become exceptional to have those. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't agree. We had a debate about this recently regarding Music of the Command & Conquer series. That ended up with one image being retained. I think the line you're trying to describe is fuzzy at best. I think a much clearer line is whether a subsection of an article can stand on its own or not. If it can't, there's not much basis for an argument that we have to have a fair use image to describe it. We have processes in place regarding notability of subjects. There's AfD to cover articles. The case you describe has no supporting processes. We don't have Wikipedia:Article subsections for deletions, or any process for external review of the notability of a subsection of an article. I can see your point, but do not see anyway to reasonably enforce it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Of course, I would go further. When an album/dvd/videogame article describes more than one release, the use of an front cover for each of these releases is allowed, according to non-free policy and guidelines, for the same reason it is allowed for an article which describes just a single release. Whether the article is just a stub or of a very high quality doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter for an article about a single release. However, some editors (see above) claim that according to "consensus" or "longstanding practice" this is not allowed and drag in the concept of notability to avoid having front cover images in those articles. However, this is against notability policy and also not in accordance with non-free content policy. I don't believe this group of editors would ever agree with your idea (which in my view tries to restore the balance between quality and free content which got lost in current practice) but the truth is, we don't need them to agree. Consensus within a certain group does not overrule policy. Lumdeloo (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (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:Sofiarotarusingwillalwaysbewithus.jpg

{{discussion top}} This is a possible violation of the WP:FILMNFI as the image is not commented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs)

Again, seems fine. A single poster in the infobox is generally going to be useful. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Each image is commented. Please stop erasing comments in the article and post a new version of the article without comments of the image.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (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.

Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den

{{discussion top}} Author died 1982, no reason to assume that this poem is free. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This poem is reproduced all over the place, and I don't believe Chao was ever restrictive about its use even when it was alive (he allowed it to be used in many articles). It's similar to a linguistic example sentence. Plus, since the article is about the poem, it makes sense to quote it. Also note that the current PRC copyright law was not established until 2001 (I believe the previous version was 1990, still long after the poem was written). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You can even download current movies all over the place. Should I put them here on WP?
Why do you assume that PRC law would be important in this case? Isn't WP in the USA? --91.55.204.55 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No source for authorship, no reason to assume that this poem is non-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, not some poem where the authorship is in doubt. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reference in the article. If there is no doubt, please state by whom, where and when it was published, so that it's possible to assess this allegation of copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, read it then. It's right there. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Checked again, don't see it. Please link the citation here.
Not really. Just read the article and you will find the author's name. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's non-free, and no, the full text should not be there. If I'm wrong, prove it. Someone familiar with the article remove it. If not, I'll go at it with a hatchet. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the burden of proof lie on the one laying the charges? You're claiming it's non-free. Don't demand negative proof. Using your logic I can remove every article on WP by claiming it's copyvio.
Are you suggesting that this is not Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den by Yuen Ren Chao? It's very obviously non-free, as it is written by a guy who died in 1982. --91.55.204.55 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You wanna do that, I'll happily block you. Now, be reasonable. Author died in the 1980s- that would mean the poem is still under copyright. If you disagree with this assumption, explain why... J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And the source for Yuen Ren Chao being the author is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatMine (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
EatMine, it is well-known that YR Chao is the author. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, remove it from the article for being unsourced... Look, seriously, shut up, do something useful. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(out) J Milburn, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on your first point. Even if it's non-free, entire copies of non-free content are allowable in articles that are about that work (see, for example, Entropa), and this is a rather short poem so it's not like we're copying the entirety of a novel. Furthermore, since the whole thing was meant as a linguistic example, it should be fine to reproduce (see, for example, List of linguistic example sentences—I don't think we're violating Noam Chomsky's rights by reprinting "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", or Tom Bever's rights by reprinting "The horse raced past the barn fell", as these are practically common knowledge and are widely used). There is no plagiarism concern, as the article states quite prominently that it's YR Chao's work. Finally, the use of this text doesn't infringe on anyone's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2) as no one is really going around trying to make a profit on this 40-year-old piece of work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Even for shorter songs and poems, the entire thing should not be reproduced (quotes are a different matter- we reproduce the quotes, not whole speechs- so, by comparison, quote this poem) unless it is free, in which case it belongs on Wikisource. Even if it may be "as good as free", it technically isn't, so doesn't belong on Wikisource- therefore it must be treated as any other non-free text. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC #3b. There is absolutely no reason to have 15 versions/translations/transcriptions of the exact same non-free work. I also see no reason to include the entire poem when an exert or quote can suffice. Do you know who the current copyright holder is? If not, then how can you claim it isn't infringing on anyone's commercial opportunities? If someone either inherited or bought the rights to this poem, and the copyright hasn't expired, then there are still commercial opportunities. You can't will those away based on your own speculation. Furthermore, I think it needs to be clearly stated that all works are assumed to be copyrighted unless clearly demonstrated otherwise (either by showing the item has been release under a free license, or demonstrating the copyright has lapsed or expired). Let us not forget that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, and what that means. -Andrew c [talk] 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If your claim of non-free is as so, then one should ask why the same article has not been deleted from the Chinese Wikipedia, to which the servers are also located in Florida, and thus must comply with US copyright laws. If one can contact the Chinese Wikipedia and get them to delete the poem, then I by no means see why you cannot here; however if you cannot, I must argue likewise. As with Rjanag's argument that this very short literary piece is linguistically significant and is thus distributed everywhere, I do not believe that this comes under non-free. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there also appears to be little or no controversy on the Yue Chinese Wikipedia, the Korean Wikipedia, the Russian Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, the Minnan Chinese Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, and the Spanish Wikipedia. Start convincing them to delete theirs, before you can convince me. QUOTE: "There is absolutely no reason to have 15 versions/translations/transcriptions of the exact same non-free work." That is the exact purpose of the article - to demonstrate how, when Classical Chinese, today a solely written language, is spoken using Vernacular Chinese variants, spoken languages, one can make very little sense of it. Also note that no one owns the copyrights to the Vernacular translations. The original text was written in Classical Chinese, and a part of the article holds the poem in Vernacular Chinese; such a thing would be like grabbing "Oh Romeo, where art thee? Methinks I hath lost thou" and "translating" it into "Romeo, where the hell are you? You fell in a hole or something?" - clearly not original enough to be considered of copyright by YR Chao. So technically there aren't "15 translations of the same poem" - 2 International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciations of the Original Classical Chinese text, as it would be said by someone 500 or 1000 years ago (how are pronunication guides copyright? We have such things at the start of almost every article about something foreign) so that no living, sane man, woman or dog could possibly make any sense of the IPA just by itself (as said, it is a pronunciation guide, it does not convey meaning. This is the same with all the romanizations; without logograms, Chinese is meaningless; it is definitionless. Logograms convey meaning through ideas, not sounds, which is a concept very important, as demonstrated in the article. There would be no information; it would be parallel to writing "bah bah bah woof woof woof" for 36,000 loops), versions in various Chinese dialects... I feel that it would be fair and reasonable to use these "15", as there is no reason to state that thay are all commercial. QUOTE: "I also see no reason to include the entire poem when an exert or quote can suffice." The entire poem is made of "shi shi shi..." do you think that anyone would be able to make any sense or meaning from a portion of the poem? Surely that would be very confusing for the reader. What people want when reading an article is to make an understanding of something they don't understand - otherwise, why would we all be here? I browse Wikipedia to find the molar mass of Calcium carbonate; to find the date that Alfred Nobel died; to find out how many fatalities there were during the Yom Kippur War. If we were to include no poem or a partial poem, we utterly fail at properly explaining what needs to be explained. One needs the entire poem to be able to make sense of the "shi shi shi" which would otherwise be gibberish even to the most learned of Chinese linguists. If it is not complete, it makes no sense at all, and so the article becomes pointless. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The big question I have is this; when was this written? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that is immaterial to Chinese copyright law. According to this translation, it is 50 years after his death. In the US, the publication date is key. However, it would be 95 years after publication. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As Carl Sandburg wrote in the old lawyers' nostrum, The People, Yes (1936), "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts." Right now, I don't have the law on my hands, as I can't really argue law very well, so I am arguing the facts, facts being that having no poem or a partial poem would make no sense for the reader, and is therefore a poor idea of resolving a "non-free text" issue, in rebuttal of User:Andrew c. We can only find an alternate solution; the current ones proposed do not help the improvement of the article nor our current situation in any way. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed: The entirety of Lenin's Hanging Order is used in Lenin's Hanging Order without any issues. 95 years after publication in 1918 (by secrecy) would be 2013; 95 years after first release to the public from Soviet archives would be 2086. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You're babbling about absolutely nothing. The poem is non-free. We do not host non-free poems. Please remove it. This should be an article about the poem- regardless of whether it is free (which it isn't) it shouldn't be included. If it is not removed, I am just going to delete the majority of the article as a copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How can one explain the poem if one cannot see the poem? An article about the poem needs specific content from the poem itself in order to make any sense. And I am babbling that there are many other examples of non-free texts being on Wikipedia, without any controversy. What makes this one any different? Under your argument, you should go and delete Lenin's Hanging Order first. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't care. Secondly, you're wrong. We manage to have featured articles on novels without transcribing the entire work, and even when the poem is PD, we hide most of the actual text. Just remove it, it's against policy. If you have problems with other pages, we can discuss them once this one has been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it myself, probably rather clumsily. I gave you plenty of chance to fix the issue yourself... J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You cannot compare this with The Raven as the poem we're dealing with is much smaller, so that a synopsis would be out of the picture. Again, you have ignored the argument that no one can claim copyright to the vernacular translation (I am actually wondering as to whether any of my points have been read), nor the pronunciation guides. The most that can ever be claimed would be the original, and the original only. And sorry for seeming like I'm complaining and nagging about WP:OTHERCRAP, but I do feel that you seem to be agitated or in a rush or something; I'm not advocating that other pages be deleted nor am I arguing that they be kept. I am just wondering why you are making an inferrence based on false dilemma, where we have similar examples on pages such as Samantha Smith#Life (PD-US impossible, born 1972), just a simple inquiry. I don't see the need for either of us to be blunt, and I do think that you should try to be a bit more empathetic when reasoning with others. Lots of kindness, and hopes for better cooperation in the future, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, Lenin's Hanging Order is in the PD under the claims of life of author plus 70 years, and published before 1923 (so discussion of that in this forum is off topic, though the question on whether it is encyclopedic to including full text of primary sources may be valid, it's still off topic here). While I would like to remove every instance of copyright violations on Wikipedia, the task is enormous, and you can't hold one or two individuals accountable for that. However, when someone brings a concern or issue to such a public venue as this, it would be nonsensical not to act based on claims that other copyvios exist. Hey, please tell me every instance of a copyvio/NFC abuse that you know of, and I'd gladly address them as well. We are only biased in that we'll only address issues brought to the attention of this page.-Andrew c [talk] 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is just simply not enough numerical variation in the romanizations. Being alphabetized, they no longer share the meaning offered by logograms, and merely serve as loops of "shi shi shi...", and unlike alphabetized words in English, they cannot be distinguishable enough to form meaningful words, let alone sentences. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An author can certainly claim copyright on translations. Do you really think it would be legitimate of me to translate Harry Potter into some minor language (Manx? I doubt it's been translated into Manx...) and then sell it, without Rowling's permission? No. J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a translation, it is a transliteration. A translation is a transfer of a text from one intelligible language to another, a language intelligible to humans. This is a transliteration to a different writing system, namely the Latin alphabet and IPA, to the degree that it is not intelligible to any human being. Give any Chinese a sheet of "Shi shi shi..." to read, and they will not understand a bit of it, not only due to tones, but also due to homophones, lack of ideographs, the scarcity of Classical Chinese in the modern age, and randomness to the point where it would be almost impossible for any human being to understand the text in that form. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was... not a little taken aback to find the text of the poem vanished from the article. As some have said above, this poem is clearly linguistically significant, and should be treated similarly to "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", etc. Please restore the text to the article as you see fit. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use.

The full text of the poem is required:

  • To illustrate the subject in question
  • No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
  • The intention of including the text is to educate, not for any sort of profit or gain, nor to "supersede" the original work.
    • The original text was not intended for profit or gain either.

Seriously, I am shocked that this has even an issue. This is completely ridiculous - the author of the poem never meant to restrict its copying in any way, but to educate people about Classical Chinese. The people who brought this issue up should be ashamed of themselves. 131.111.248.85 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the author of the poem never meant to restrict its copying in any way That is awesome! Now then. Where is this documented? How can we determine the copyright status? Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, we simply cannot take your word for it.-Andrew c [talk] 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who knows chinese and has a bit of common sense can see that by the content of the poem. But actually that is irrelevant to "fair use", which the article satisfies. I was just adding it as a side point. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is irrelevant, but whatever. As for this being about "fair use", it simply is not. Wikipedia has stricter standards than simple "fair use". See WP:NFCC. We clearly have a bias for free content. Something that may be legal and "fair use" may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia due to our stricter policy. -Andrew c [talk] 12:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


arbitrary break

It's clear that the discussion here is not really getting anywhere. I would suggest we open this up to an RfC at the article's talk page. Specifically, I think we need editors who can more clearly determine the copyright status of the poem, because to be honest it's still not clear, and it will help if someone can track down where it was first published and what copyright law that would fall under. (For example, I don't know if it falls under Chinese or US copyright law, as Chao was in California for most of his life and most of his books are published through U of California Press. Another issue is whether it was intended as a linguistic example--for example, like the stimuli used in linguistic experiments--or as a creative work.) Since there's not a clear agreement anywhere, I think RfC is the best way to go. I have limited internet access right now, but if everyone agrees an RfC is warranted then I can start it on Sunday night. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

copyright is irrelevant; if it is still under copyright then it qualifies for fair use, for the reasons I stated above. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Which edit was that? The only edit above from 193.60.95.68 does not present reasons for fair use. If you created an account and logged in, people would be better able to follow your reasons. In any case Wikipedia's policy on not free content is more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 08:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Re teb728: Both 131.111.248.85 and 193.60.95.68 are from UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UNITED KINGDOM. That's why I always check Geolocate, the first thing I do, everytime I see an IP editor. :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No free equivalent. Respect for commercial opportunities. Usage of a very small amount of text. Previous publication. Encyclopedic content. Media-specific policy. One-article minimum. (and most important of all...) Contextual significance. What more could you want? As far as I can see, the article as it was a week ago adheres to these points. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright comrades, here is what I interpret so far regarding the concept of "free use" and the article in question:

  • No free equivalent. There is no free alternative of the poem.
  • Respect for commercial opportunities. Highly doubtful that this poem, very brief in detail and length, and in almost every single language-education textbook in the People's Republic of China, would become commercial. YR Chao's only living offspring are academians, and not profiteers. Even if it is so, Wikipedia's fair use does not come into conflict with it becoming commercial; it would be more logical to go for the thousands of PRC-government-owned and private-owned educational textbook manufacturers first than to go for Wikipedia, in the case that they suddenly think that they should do so. Same goes for websites, published papers, etc. However, once this has been announced, one can easily remove the text. As of now, YR Chao's offspring have done nothing to the thousands of book publishers in China and abroad; how is Wikipedia any different?
  • Minimal usage. The text doesn't even surpass 300 bytes. The message that I am posting write now will soon surpass 2,000 bytes.
  • Previous publication. It's everywhere, you just have to look. And don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.
  • Content. Meaningful and encyclopedic, as required.
  • Media-specific policy. Does Wikipedia have specific policy on text quotations?
  • Contextual significance. How is it not?
  • Restrictions on location. Unlikely for the poem to crop up anywhere else on Wikipedia.
  • Image description page. Not applicable.

Any comments? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b: “An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.” The title and its transliteration (together with free text description of how the title is typical of the poem) suffices. WP:NFCC#1: A free equivalent does not have to be a free poem: The replacement can be prose text. The free text summary description remaining after the removal of the poem serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the poem. WP:NFCC#5: The article is significantly more encyclopedic with the removal of the poem. (WP:NFCC#Enforcement: “Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created”) —teb728 t c 10:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) So no one is interested in opening an RfC as I suggested? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested, but I may not be able to participate in the next few weeks... I'll see how things go. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment to decide whether it's ok to publish the entirity of a non-free poem several times over? I don't think we need that... J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The poem still is copyrighted in China. China has one of the most liberal copyright laws in the world, so it would be safe to assume that it's copyrighted in every other country. Now, as for copyright, if not released under a free license, it's either fully copyrighted or it's in the public domain. Nothing in between. We also know that the U.S. has one of the most liberal fair use laws in the world, and on top of that the English Wikipedia has one of the most liberal fair use policies in Wikimedia. I'm not trying to say, it must be OK here because it's OK there; I'm saying, it's either OK everywhere, or prohibited everywhere, or if there were one Wikipedia where it would be OK, that would be the English Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to check with the other Wikipedias first. If they can defend the inclusion successfully, they must know something about copyright law we don't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the several reasons above, there are several reasons why things are unclear about this poem. (And I'm not sure if China's copyright law is the one that applies, as I'm pretty sure Chao wrote and published this in the US, like he did A Grammar of Spoken Chinese and his other works.) Things need to be discussed in more detail, and in a more organized fashion, and it would be nice to start the discussion fresh and with some new people...that's why I suggested moving this to an RfC in another location. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. J Milburn: The mere presence of many people of an different opinion, while not necessarily making that opinion right, at least makes the matter a subject of debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who believe in the absolute scientific truth of intelligent design- that doesn't mean a "debate" is needed. A debate is required when there are two potentially valid opposing views. Once again, King of Hearts, you really need to stop pandering to mass opinion and just deal with the problems as they arise. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) I wrote up a draft of an RfC intro at User:Rjanag/Lion RFC. People involved, you are welcome to review it and let me know if you think this fairly reflects the opinions of all the editors involved. If there are no objections, I can post that message to the article's talk page and file an RfC there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be one pointless RFC. Just prove the poem is not copyrighted and it can be included. If not, include a section of the poem, not the complete poem, in the article and make sure it passes WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (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:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg

{{discussion top}} Is the fair use rationale provided for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario,[17] even though a grammatical nightmare due to the title of the article, valid for its use on the article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. It fails WP:NFCC#8, “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.” The article would be perfectly understandable without use of the image. The article needs no “visual accompaniment to a description of the sign” for user understanding. —teb728 t c 06:19, 2 November 2009 (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:Milla Jovovich Resident Evil 2002.jpg

{{done}} Non-free image of a living actress, used in the biography article for nothing other than to show what she looks like in one role. I left a note about this image at Talk:Milla Jovovich#Non-free image and no one responded in a month and a half, but when I removed it today an editor immediately objected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • That she designs fashion is known. That the fashion she designed for Resident Evil is notable is weak at best. Nothing in the sources for the article indicate this. Further, the prose in the section where the image is is not connected to the image in regards to fashion. No reason to use a fair use image to depict what is so unimportant to the article. Fails NFCC #1 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article passed its GAN with a picture of Jovovich from Resident Evil (...this is not that relevant, I know). The sixth GA criterium says "Illustrated", which is a reason for this picture. It was not added to make the article look nicer or whatsoever. In the article there are lots of refereces to Jovovich's role in action movies; and as I mentioned the article also comments the costume. Btw. she played in three resident evil films, not "one". In my opinion, the infobox image does not explain how she looks like in action-horror movies, for which she is known - why she was referred as the "reigning queen of kick-butt". So I don't see a point in removing content that is a part of the reason why the article is listed as a good article. That is basically only decreasing the quality of the article. Cheers..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:GACR says a good article is illustrated if possible. But the use of this non-free image is not possible in this article because its presence does not significantly increase readers’ understanding, as required by Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. The loss to the article from following this policy is very slight because the image contributes very little to the article. —teb728 t c 08:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand the non-free content policy. I just think that the image contributes very much to the article, not very little. But if the majority thinks something else, I am probably out of luck..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:GACR is not even a guideline. It most certainly does not trump WP:NFCC. We must first abide by WP:NFCC, and THEN we can consider WP:GACR. The costume is not notable in secondary sources. Why should an image of a costume so non-notable as to not engender any comments from secondary sources be present in this article? That's a pretty simple answer; it shouldn't. See WP:NFCC #8. Also, since the image has already been replaced in functionality by text in the fashion section noting that she designed her own costumes, the image fails WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Can I take this to mean there's consensus to remove the image? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Insidethe Rev.jpg

{{resolved}}

The reason for this review request is that I do not feel that the given rationale is accurate.

The article for which this image is being used is Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela.

The notes on the file say: Author: Pablo Navarrete Source: The author himself URL: N/A Fair Use Rationale: Permission to reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) at the site of the original publication. The rationale on initial upload read (Author: Pablo Navarrete Source: The author himself URL: N/A Fair Use Rationale: He told me I could use it )

It is also shown as being PD: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

From the initial comment at upload, the uploader (User:Hi0u91e9) is obviously not the copyright owner.

I'm not sure if this would qualify as a fair-use image - hence why I am bringing it to review rather than flagging it as a copyvio.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Maxey groundwater.jpg and File:2002 MaxeyFrmSoutheast.jpg

Moving this from my talk page for further review - not 100% sure where to go with this:

I'm a little late getting to this. The image was deleted some time ago from what I can tell. It was a scan I made of a groundwater contamination study that's in the Superfund archive near the Maxey Flat Low Level Radioactive Waste site. They have two archives, actually. One is in the Flemingsburgh Public Library and the other is in the library at Morehead State. I scanned mine from the Public Library. The later groundwater sampling was done by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but the one I posted is from an EPA-funded study that was part of the Superfund program. I'm pretty sure all that stuff from the federal archive is available for public reproduction. If not I'm really sorry, but I thought that's the way it worked. R. Jackson (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I presume you're referring to both File:Maxey groundwater.jpg and File:2002 MaxeyFrmSoutheast.jpg. Can you supply the name of the specific books that they were taken from - ISBN would be really helpful to prove the fact they're EPA-related and would be eligible for the {{PD-USGov}}. We need to be able to trace it back to the government source to justify/support the USGov template. Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not really a collection of books with ISBN numbers. It's a bunch of three-ring 2" white notebooks containing whatever papers didn't fall through the cracks when the facility was changing hands. The EPA established the archives when they were doing their remediation studies. So some of the stuff is sourced to federal agencies and some to state agencies. Some comes from the original private contractor, which I'd like to put up, but obviously can't. There's quite a bit of CDC stuff in the archives. I actually followed up on the CDC stuff and went to interview the author, a Dr. Paul Charp, at the CDC in Atlanta. BTW, MaxeyFrmSoutheast.jpg was taken by a photographer from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, so it doesn't fall under the federal umbrella. I don't actually know exactly what Kentucky's stance is on their documents. I've had quite a bit of trouble getting documents from Kentucky and never have had a straight story as to why. I asked for water contamination studies the first time I visited their labs and my liaison said, "Well, it's not something we're prepared to let just anyone see." I went through their state legislature and still didn't get anywhere, although I was repeatedly assured that if I filled out all the forms I'd get copies of the documents I was asking to see. The documents I did get from the Commonwealth came from disgruntled employees anonymously. The requests never worked. SO...I wouldn't have posted any of Kentucky's water contamination documents (not with an expectation of them staying up, anyway). The table I uploaded, Maxey groundwater.jpg, is a scan of an EPA water contamination study that was done as part of Dr. Paul Charp's health impact study for the CDC. I don't have any kind of reference ID number from the archive, though. I just scanned a page out of a 3-ring notebook. R. Jackson (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
My thought is that File:Maxey groundwater.jpg would probably be {{PD-USGov-EPA}} or {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}, File:2002 MaxeyFrmSoutheast.jpg - but the image refers to "Kentucky cabinet of human resources laboratory"...? We don't have any template for the state of KY, looking for suggestions on this one. My other problem is in RRJackson's explanation of the source for both images - would that stand up to scrutiny? So, opening this up for further input. Skier Dude (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note. The reference to "Kentucky cabinet of human resources laboratory" is, as far as I can tell, a comparative historical footnote where the author of this report is comparing the results to a different study done by the "Kentucky cabinet of human resources laboratory." BTW, I understand the issue of it being hard to verify my story, but the archives are there, federally-funded and open to the public. So fact-checking is certainly possible, but it would require a trip to the archives. Also, while I believe this document was authored by the CDC, it's entirely possible that the water sampling was done by the USGS, who were involved in the process of gathering data about the groundwater near the site as early as 1974. That's part of a really odd and convoluted history of the site, though. Early USGS samples were gathered by the USGS, but tested by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Allegedly the samples all kept coming back with numbers well within the safety limits imposed by the EPA. A concerned citizen's group funded an independent study and when those numbers came back showing significant tritium and plutonium concentrations in the groundwater it called the prior water studies into question.

R. Jackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

{{discussion top}}

File:Fernando castiella.jpg

{{resolved}} See its entry on the Files for deletion page. Claimed as fair use, but whether it breaches WP:NFCC#8 is disputed. RedCoat10 • talk 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Paul Levitz by Dave Manak.jpg

{{resolved}} I don't know if a 591 x 692px copyrighted caricature of a BLP subject from 1976 is really appropriate for that subject's article. User:Ntnon explains on the file's page that it is used in that article because "The image is useful for identifying the subject towards the start of his professional career." I think this is specious, since a caricature is hardly the best way to identify a BLP, and there is a 2007 photo of Levitz in the article's Infobox. Just thought I'd give a heads up. Nightscream (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The user who uploaded it is reverting it, and in any case, it's still too large to qualify for Fair Use. Nightscream (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Zep30a.jpg

{{resolved}} I'm not sure the usage of this image at Goodyear Airdock qualifies under NFCC#1 and 2 in part because of the existence of File:Goodyear Airdock exterior.jpg. It's a building, it's still in existence but I understand how it may qualify under NFCC#8 "increasing readers' understanding of the topic" by having a comparison to an actual blimp but in the end, I'd rather err on caution and not include the image. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • This is a blatantly replaceable (and replaced) image. I've removed it from the article, and move the two gallery images out of the gallery with one in the infobox and one inline. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg

{{discussion top}} This image may not meet criteria number one of the non-free policy, if FOP applies to the sculpture. I'm taking this into discussion, just to be sure, because a free image may be possible to obtain if FOP is okay with a public sculpture in the United States. --ZooFari 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If FOP applied to the sculpture, the image would be free, because the photograph (or more precisely, the rights in it held by the photographer) is freely licensed. If it wasn't, then we couldn't use it even with a NFUR or free license for the sculpture because the photographer would still have rights. However, there is no FOP in the U.S. for sculptures, which is why the sculpture is treated as copyrighted. This is clearly noted on the image description page, which states that the photograph is cc-by-sa-2.0, but Template:Non-free 3D art applies to the copyrighted sculpture. postdlf (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree that there is no concern as the OP appears to have mistaken the applicability of FOP. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in the US (unfortunately), so I don't see an issue here. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okey doke. --ZooFari 07:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed, no action needed (non-admin closure). --Paul_012 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (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:Lumberjack Song.jpg

Only has a fair-use rationale for Michael Palin, but is included on four articles. Plus, the rationale for use on the Palin article claims the image is discussed in the text, but it is not (the sketch is mentioned, very briefly, but not this specific image). In my opinion, a valid FUR could be written for "The Lumberjack Song" and maybe Monty Python, but not for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Powers T 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a fair-use rationale for The Lumberjack Song. I agree there doesn't seem to be one for Michael Palin or Connie Booth. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image from articles that failed NFCC #10c. It was once restored at Monty Python, where I noticed other NFCC abuses. We may need eyes on there. As for the specifics, if someone can write an adequate fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, then good. Uses that fail the most basic of criteria need to be removed from those articles. We could argue back and forth regarding how much that image significantly increases our understanding of Michael Palin/Connie Booth, but until rationales have been written, that point is moot. -Andrew c [talk] 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A FUR has been written for Michael Palin, so I would like to discuss whether it's valid. Powers T 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I reiterate that the point Andrew mentions regarding the how much the image increases our understanding of Michael Palin is not moot as he indicated it was, but rather very relevant here, and in fact is the very FUR I was disputing when I introduced this discussion. Thoughts? Powers T 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_5&oldid=1136449762"