Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 52

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Jabba the Hutt

There is consensus that the image all seem to be necessary except the toy figure File:JabbatheHuttPlayset.jpg. TLSuda (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Im not seeing a need for 7 pictures of the same character Werieth (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage rationales leave quite a bit to be desired, but the need for each usage is properly established in the article, as each image serves a different function. Take into account that the successive changes to the character's design are a major factor in reliable sources reporting about it. Diego (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The toy set figure is unnecessary. The rest seem reasonable though I'd argue that the remastered version of New Hope's Jabba should be used next to the same shot (From Han's POV) from the original, to compare and show how Jabba was added. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. Maybe the action figure should be moved to the article about Star Wars merchandise, if we had one. Diego (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2014 (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:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg

Image is definitely PD as a reproduction of a 1843 work. TLSuda (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I am seeking input regarding this image as a possible PD reproduction. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's a reproduction of an authentic mid-19th-century work (and that work was evidently printed, hence published at the time), then there can be little doubt it's PD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 21 May 2014 (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.

King Kong vs. Godzilla

Movie posters and comic cover are not necessary per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant miss-use of non-free files. I have attempted to prune the abuse but have been reverted. Werieth (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The two other movie posters (beyond the one in the infobox) aren't needed or discussed and should be removed. The comic cover should no be used at all. I think the two production photos are reasonable to include per discussion of what's being stated in the text. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 23 May 2014 (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.

KILM

First logo is PD-textlogo. There is not enough information to see if second is PD or not. As non-free fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The historical logos on this page do not meet WP:NFCC#8, but I do not know if all of them meet the threshold of originality either. Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The first logo presenting in there is clearly PD text. I want to say that the second, which uses a very simple gradient effect, might also be free, but can't say 100% for sure. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 21 May 2014 (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.

Sri Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education

Images fail WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two extra logos do not seem to meet WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2014 (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.

Beat It

2 cover sound clips and alternative cover fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can this article really justify 4 non-free images and 3 sound clips for one article? Werieth (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Alt. cover (UK release) is one not significantly different from US version (yes, different pose, but same outfit, and minimal art in first place) to need that. First sound clip is clearly okay, as well as the shot from the video. Neither audio clip of the covers is discussed in any way so are inappropriate. I will say that the Fall Out Boy cover clearly could be its own notable article (per GNG) but obviously makes sense to keep it part of the main single coverage , and in such a case, I would reasonably allow its cover art to be kept. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 23 May 2014 (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.

Books About Curling

Standard case of NFLIST, files removed Werieth (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Inappropriate use of non-free content. The article also looks like a candidate for AfD. Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2014 (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.

Alien (film)

There is no consensus in over a month that the article cannot justify the included non-free media at this time. TLSuda (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can this article really justify 8 non-free images. I'm only seeing justification for 3-4. Werieth (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think most of them are actually fine - there's plenty of them about the film's production and design inspirations to keep around. That said, the crew picture is probably better suited at the "List of Alien characters" page (that is linked at the top of that section), and the cover of that separate work doesn't need to be there at all. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The total as now jumped to 10 files. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Even with these added 2, I feel all the imagery is appropriately discussed, given that this film is one that is highlighted for its SFX and visual looks; excluding the poster and cast image, the rest are showing all core elements of the visual effects were built from and explained in text. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 7 June 2014 (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.

12 Discípulos

There is consensus that at least three of the samples (specifically the last three) are excessive and unnecessary. TLSuda (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are an excessive number of sound clips. There are only 12 tracks and there are 4 samples. this could easily be reduced to 1-2 examples. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one sample is provided with discussion about the sound style - the first one. The other ones present are claimed to be about talking about lyrics, which can be explain by prose or limited quotes; the last about using a female lead doesn't need sound sample to be understood. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (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.

Partition of India

There is consensus that the images in the gallery section are not being used correctly. Therefore, I have removed the entire gallery section. The images that have been removed and have no other current use, have been tagged as orphaned fair use. TLSuda (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is more of a review question, this article contains 12 non-free images. are they being used correctly? Werieth (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The seven in the Gallery are not; one might be able to be moved up to be used in the section (1947-1957), such as the 5th one showing a packed train that implies the size of the Partition, but we don't need all 7. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 26 May 2014 (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.

Akron RubberDucks

Consensus is historical logo fails WP:NFCC#8 and duplicate logo fails WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This does not need two almost identical duck logos. Also, the historical logo fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on both - definitely on the mascot logo one can just say that it is included in the logo. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 28 May 2014 (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:Arts et Métiers CER Metz.jpg

Consensus is the image can be kept under the {{FoP-USonly}} tag, if the uploader released the photograph under a free license. As there has been no response from the uploader (Maxicar) I am deleting this file for the time being. If the uploader is the original photographer and agrees to release the photo under a free license, I will happily reinstate the image upon request at my talkpage. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replaceable non-free photo. Maxicar: If you took the photo and wish for it to be kept, please license it under a free license and add a {{FoP-USonly}} tag. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama for recent works of architecture in France. So even it Maxicar was the credited photographer we'd have to treat this as fair use. De728631 (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States (i.e. the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopædia which is illegal to use outside the United States). The copyright law of the United States states that there is freedom of panorama for architecture if the architecture is visible from a public place. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If the building was in a public place in the US, not anywhere in the world. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The copyright law of the United States doesn't say anything about the location of the object. Also, looking at Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, it sounds as if it isn't possible to write a copyright law which takes into consideration the location of a work, only the country in which the work is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about France's law, which is pretty clear that only the architect of a building has rights on the derivative works of that building, and that copyright law would be respected in the US, in that the image would still be non-free for us. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, see Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention: "Consequently, [...], the extent of protection, [...], shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed." Consequently, a US court which respects French law violates intellectual property agreements between the United States and France. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
FOP aside we're still not sure whether the original uploader is the copyright holder of the photograph. And while fair use is being claimed, the image must not be used in a mere gallery for illustrative purposes without contextual significance to the article. Following the principle of caution we should delete it. De728631 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the uploader and the photograph as identified appears to be one and the same on name alone. Secondly, now I see what Stefan is stating and checking a few other images of buildings in non-FOP countries but used here, we can treat those images as "free" under our US FoP but they can't be copied to commons since in France they would not be free. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right with the name. I guess I got confused by "Original work: Michel Remon" but that's the architect. And on a second thought, Stefan is right. There's even a template {{FoP-USonly}}. So if Maxicar agrees to release the image under a free licence we can keep it. De728631 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2014 (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.

Heraldic badges of the Canadian government

Consensus is the images fails WP:NFTABLE and therefore are in violation of our non-free policies. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free files fail WP:NFTABLE. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary article/table in the first place. Individual badges are fine to use on the pages for these departments, but there's no need for a page to group them together with no contrast or comparison for that. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (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:MicroPro Logo.svg

Consensus is the base logo is most likely PD-textlogo and therefore free, but this version has an unknown status. As such, it is being deleted as replaceable fair use. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The underlying image is probably a PD-logo, not sure if the SVG needs to be remade. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to validate what the unblemished logo would look like, the messiness of this SVG looks like it was made from a auto-trace of a bad scan (note the mess about the (R) mark). I suspect the original logo was clearly simple and could be remade in a free and cleaner SVG. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (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.

MTV2

Consensus is two of the logos are in the public domain, while the at launch logo and alt dog logo are not, and fail WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The historical logos (i.e. those which are not in the infobox) do not meet WP:NFCC#8, but some of them possibly do not meet the threshold of originality either. Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The original MTV logo (not 2) appears uncopyrightable since its hosted at commons. As such, the MTV2's variation that uses that logo straight up are also uncopyrightable and okay. The alternate 2-headed dog, and the "at launch" logo are not needed. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 30 May 2014 (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.

SmarTone

Current logo changed to PD-ineligible-USonly. Previous logos removed previously. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Former logos do not meet WP:NFCC#8. Some logos do not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Former logo does meet TOO and thus is copyrightable, and as a non-free without discussion, not needed. Currently logo is under TOO and is free. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (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.

Keystone Ice Miners

Consensus is to keep the images that there is discussion about, but to remove the ones that fail WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We do not need all of these former logos. The ones which are not in the main infobox fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically there is discussion of the logos, but this article is so short that the discussion of the logos seems extremely undue. Can the article be expanded in any way, and if not, is this really a notable team? --MASEM (t) 22:33, 2 June 2014 (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:Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport Logo.svg

Image is PD-textlogo. TLSuda (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC#9, but maybe {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably just under the TOO, and thus could be free. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (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:Richter window Cologne Cathedral.jpg

Consensus is the image is non-free and meets all of the criteria of WP:NFCC, including not being replaceable by a free image as the same image could not be remade from taking a photo of the outside. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should be covered by Freedom of Panorama in Germany, shouldn't it? The CC-BY-SA license on the photograph is correct.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • C:COM:FOP#Germany appears to require that the camera is located in a public place outdoors. Note the wording "Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht" i.e. you may only take photos of the exterior of buildings, but not of the interior. It may therefore be a problem that the photograph was taken from the inside, whereas a photograph taken from the outside (with the camera located in a public place) might be OK.
The German FOP rules look very similar to the Swedish pre-1961 FOP rules. In 1961, there were major changes to copyright legislation in Sweden, and one of the changes which affected FOP in Sweden was a decision by the politicians that it was silly to permit photographs of the façade of a building but not photographs of rooms inside the building. Germany seems to have kept that silly rule.
If a free image can be created by merely placing the camera at a different location, then this picture violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily - in this case, I can argue that the educational value of a photograph of a stained-glass window as a work of art is when the photo is taken from the inside of the building it's installed, as to allow the interior darkness to highlight the artistic effect of the window (the way it was meant to be viewed). The photograph of the window from the outside, while having some value, is going to have the window completely washed out by the bright light all around, and as such loses the artistic/educational value. As such, no, there is no free equivalent, if the point of this photo is to showcase the window as a work of art. Given that under both German and US FOP law that we'd not be able to mark this free, its use in the Cologne Catherdal and the Ritcher articles is fine, but the one use in the Stained glass article is improper (it's yet one of several already-commons examples of 20-21st century stained glass, so unneeded). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? So nobody can take a picture of the exterior of the cathedral at night when there are lights on inside? :) Replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Knowing various churches and cathedrals that I've seen in the US and Europe, the amount of lighting that is generated from inside the church is far too little to illuminate the window from the outside as when viewing the window from the inside with natural sunlight, and that's before considering the aspect of any other artificial light sources that may be near the cathedral that further drown that out. Yes, one could argue it might be possible to bring a portable light source like a spotlight to simulate the effect of sunlight from the inside as to get the outside image under FOP, but that's an extraordinary length that is beyond the reasonable effort we'd expect for a free equivalent. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's entirely subjective. Plenty of things can be done using existing internal lighting to create the necessary effect. The question isn't whether it is difficult. The question is can it be done. The answer is yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also on further examination, a portion of the window can convey the entirety of the window. There is no intended overall depiction, since "It is composed of 11,500 identically sized pieces of colored glass resembling pixels, randomly arranged by computer". Backlighting a single portion of the window is not an onerous task. Thus, the image as is violates WP:NFCC #3b and replacing it is considerably easier even by your definition, thus violating NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm all up for seeing for this case if that is possible when there is an FOP allowance, - eg being at the cathredal on a late-night sermon/mass and seeing if the lights from inside during such a service make the outside of the window clear - but I know from my own experience that local small city churches that had such windows, while all the lights were on inside the church, barely made the window clear from the outside. But I will stress: stained glasses windows are made to be viewed from the interior of a building due to how sunlight plays on the interior surfaces, so you still lose some of the artistic nature of the window from the outside. One would have to compare what a night external shot would be like compared to the interior daylight source would be like before saying its clearly freely replaceable.
  • And just because it's randomly generated doesn't meant a subset is equivalent to the whole. That's like saying just focusing on Mona Lisa's smile is equivalent to the overall work. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That comparison rapidly falls apart. If the entirety of the work were her smile, it would be an apt analogy. However, we both know that is not the case. I'm quite certain that photographic techniques can take images of windows on the exterior of a building and produce exquisite detail. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just going by experience and I don't find most stained glass windows from the outside are rarely(ETA) readily clear even with computer enhancement. It would be a case that someone should be challenged to try to take the external picture of the window so that we can put this and that side by side and make sure we have the same educational content, but I don't think we can say with the needed 100% certainty that a free replacement is possible. (=This is however a case that we should make the attempt and make the judgement call fro that; there's no difficult barriers that make getting the free image impossible. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My issue is that commons:Template:FoP-Germany states that "For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance" (emphasis mine), implying that works other than architecture may have freedom of panorama in external and internal appearances. I don't think a stained glass window is considered a "work of architecture"; I usually hear of them as works of art. The Commons page also has the same information. So now we must ask... is a stained glass window a "work of architecture"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
And do we have case law that we can refer to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting question! (to which I do not know the answer) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, here's some material. This is in regards to U.S. law, not German, but it's a start [1]. This was a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2000. In effect, they stated that artistic works that comprised part of the architecture of the building did not have special protections beyond any that exist of the building itself. The case specifically noted stained glass. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that Leicester v. Warner Brothers specifically refers to the changes from s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (the law which both made architecture copyrightable and which created FOP for buildings). See s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act#Sec. 706. Effective Date.: the act only applies to buildings completed on or after 1 December 1990. The cathedral was completed a long time before that, so {{FoP-US}} may not be applicable. I'm not sure if this makes the windows automatically PD, though, since there is no law which provides copyright protection to pre-1990 buildings. There may be an issue with artworks which are part of buildings completed before 1 December 1990. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • According to the article, "On 25 August 2007, the cathedral received a new stained glass in the south transept window. With 113 square metres (1,220 sq ft) of glass, the window was created by the German artist Gerhard Richter." - That may put it as PD in the US, assuming the 1990 law would have applied to the window itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Richter's idea to produce a window like this was clearly creative. But it is only the expression of his idea that is copyrightable, not his idea in itself. The design of each individual square of glass is not creative (plain square of colour of identical sizes) so it is not copyrightable, only the juxtaposition is. But we are told the arrangement of the squares was "randomly arranged by computer" so that particular arrangement was not Richter's expression (nor the computer programmer's). So, if Your Honor pleases, the window is not copyrightable. Thincat (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not reasonable. The article claims there was also some symmetry added to the randomness and it's obvious that it's not simple planar or rotational symmetry, there's still some creativity from that introduced by Richter. Additionally, the 3D elemenets - or more specifically, choosing the right pieces of glace and assembly them is added creativity above and beyond saying that each square gets this color. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's creative or perhaps not, but I think this may be free for other reasons. This is a publicly displayed artwork (visible from outside the building) that we have an image of the obverse side. If a statue is at a building entrance and is covered by German FOP is the assertion that a photo of the statue's rear, taken from inside, is a breach of copyright but that one of the front is not ? That does not make a whole lot of sense, unless it's an especially artistic arse. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, but it really is an "especially artistic arse", to borrow your expression. Stained glass windows are designed to create their artistic effect exclusively via the full natural sunlight contrasting with the darker room inside. Seeing the window from outside (as in File:Koelner Dom Suedquerhaus.jpg) is really just like seeing the canvas of an oil painting from the back. And no, I've stood outside that facade at night, and I can guarantee you that no lighting inside the cathedral could ever possibly be strong enough to light up the windows enough to make the colours appear – it would have to be as bright as the sun to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good points. But what's the import of this discussion? It can't be transferred to Commons because the artwork is plainly in Richter's copyright. It's still usable under a Fair Use rationale if the photograph itself is free and relevant criteria such as minimality are met. Is that not so? I recently uploaded a Richter image under a Fair Use rationale that so far hasn't been challenged. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Interesting discussion though for sure. Off-topic, but is it really so that FOP in UK extends to the interior of buildings (including museums)? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2014 (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:Second Battle of the Odon map.png

The consensus is the image is copyrighted and therefore non-free. As a non-free file the consensus is that the map image is replaceable, failing WP:NFCC#1. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite the claim, this image is not protected by British Crown Copyright as it is more than 50 years old. If it has once been protected by British Crown Copyright, then it is {{PD-UKGov}}. If it has never been protected by British Crown Copyright, then it violates both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that if this is not free, then the image can be recreated via the Graphics Lab and a free version made (troop position and movements in a WWII is data and can't be copyrighted). --MASEM (t) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
However, selection of which data to use is copyrightable. This is usually what makes maps copyrightable. The lines which make up the map are not artistic or anything. See for example Article 2 (5) of the Berne Convention. This is also why there are fictive places such as Agloe, New York. The WP:NFCC#1 violation comes from the fact that it is possible to draw a different map by including slightly different data. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean, recreating maps like this is standard practice for the graphics lab (eg: [2])). They do have to use different symbols, but things, like on this map Caen and the roads leading and out of it and the names of towns, are uncopyrightable data, while the formation of the fronts for the war can't be drawn exactly like that, but the geographic place is still uncopyrightable. The GL just has to create the graphics from their own hand or free sources (eg OpenStreetMap). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
A single map is not like "Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies". It is the art work that is copyrightable. If it was published first in the UK I think it will very likely be in US copyright now. If it was also published in the US then it depends. Thincat (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
A single map is a collection of data points. The collection copyright comes from choosing certain pieces of data and presenting those pieces of data. At least under Nordic copyright laws, maps are not artworks but literary works (possibly because collections, under the Berne Convention, are literary works), so the claim that "It is the art work that is copyrightable" looks invalid, as there is no artwork. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that scanned map is copyrighted, that's not in question. But it is also includes the representation of uncopyrightable data - the known positions of towns and cities and roads around Caen, and the battle front and motions documented as part of the war. There is no creativity in this data that can be copyrighted, though how it is presented on the map can be. So what we (or specifically the graphics lab) can do is to remake the map, not 100% the same but enough to capture the same uncopyrightable details. For example, instead of showing the advancing front using red crosshatching, they might show it as a solid color using a gradient. We do this same approach in recreating graphs and other figures that are based on data. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I made the assumption that it was under crown copyright due to the fact that it was created by active personnel for essentially internal usage (the same way photos from the Army Film & Photographic Unit are).
As far as I can see, there is no copyright information provided in the reprint.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2014 (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.

Keith M. Moore

This is the wrong place for this discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith M. Moore TLSuda (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't believe he is notable enough -fails WP:SOLDIER IMO and GNG Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2014 (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:Atrium Cinemas.jpg

Uploader has updated license per this request, but there has been no evidence of permission from the released source. TLSuda (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replaceable non-free photo. Umais Bin Sajjad: If you took the photo and wish for it to be kept, please license it under a free license and add a {{FoP-USonly}} tag. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 29 May 2014 (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.

Mr Floppy

Cover art on a band article fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The cover art in this band article fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No question, there's no allowance for this type of usage. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (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.

Samurai Jack

Images to be removed per WP:NFC#UUI§6. TLSuda (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate use of images in the "Influences" section, see WP:NFC#UUI §6. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - don't need to see the influence shots to understand that the show was influenced by those. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 8 June 2014 (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.

Absoft Fortran Compilers

Two mentioned images have been deleted. All WP:NFCC issues are resolved. TLSuda (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The box art (which is shown twice) fails WP:NFCC#8. I don't think that we need any compiler screenshots either. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the images are shown twice. All are different. That said, the images of the BASIC compiler boxes are irrelevant in a Fortran article and both of those are on commons under free licenses, so the problem with those need to be addressed there. File:Absoft Microsoft FORTRAN for Mac front.png is here as a free image, which seems strange. File:Absoft Microsoft FORTRAN for Mac back.png has been tagged with {{di-no license}} and the uploader has included "This is an image of box of commercial product in 1985, provided for use in Wikipedia article by manufacturer, Absoft Corporation. I am asking Absoft about any copyright issues" in the upload, so that looks like being deleted. Two screenshots are missing FURs so I've removed them from the article noting that in the edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 8 June 2014 (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.

Lucky Spencer

Consensus is the two additional images from the main infobox photo fail WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No need for three pictures of the character, see WP:NFCC#3. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, photos of the actors playing the alt versions can be used instead for those, since this is a standard head shot and no special makeup is needed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 8 June 2014 (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:WestVirginiaPublicBroadcasting.PNG

Determined to be free logo, not an NFC issue. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant failure of WP:NFC#UUI 17 Werieth (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not even close. As has been told to User:Werieth, the image is an "umbrella" logo for all of West Virginia Public Broadcasting.
Under WP:NFC#UUI 17, it says: "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." The radio side of West Virginia Public Broadcasting is called "West Virginia Public Radio" and the TV side is called "West Virginia Public Television", these are two different brandings.
The "West Virginia Public Television" stations are all redirected to West Virginia Public Broadcasting, the main page for the entire company.
This was all discussed back in May (scroll down), almost a month ago, seeming to understand that he was indeed wrong then.
Please note, the image was FUR'd to each page it is used on at the time of upload. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually I just didnt feel like making the point stand at the time. And just because you plaster a NFUR on an image doesnt mean that the usage is valid. As an "umbrella" logo the usage is limited to the top most subject. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting this might be below TOO (the "WV" mountain thing is still simple) and uncopyright, and thus free, but I'd get another opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth: :::Explain what a "top most subject" is? Because, if you are saying it should only be on the West Virginia Public Broadcasting page, you would be putting the image on the TV station side page. Remember, the "West Virginia Public Television" stations are all redirected to West Virginia Public Broadcasting, the main page for the entire company. So, technically, it would have to be removed from all pages as this would be lop-sided.
@Masem: I can remove the "West Virginia Public Broadcasting" text from the image and upload a new version (same name) if that works. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Its not lopsided, Limiting the usage to West Virginia Public Broadcasting would be appropriate. That article covers the parent company and does list the TV stations, but just because the TV stations redirect, doesnt mean that they count as a separate article. The article is about a broadcasting company and some of the stations under it. Im actually wondering if I should AfD the substations as non-notable and suggest that they be merged back. Which would solve the issue too. Werieth (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually wondering if you are trying to make more of an issue than actually needed. You seem to want to delete everything to make your POINT. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, radio station article (like TV station articles) are covered under WP:NMEDIA and supported under consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The text "West Virginia Public Broadcasting" on its own is uncopyrightable under US law (it fails the threshold of originality), so there's no reason to remove that. My thought is that the "WV" letters which are arranged to give the appearance of mountains can be seen as too simple: either as similar "W" and "V" font characters arranged in a certain manner, or some parallegram shapes arranged in a certain manner, both which are insufficient for originalty. As such, this entire logo may simply be uncopyrightable under US law and thus free (and thus can be used across any appropriate article). I'd simply ask to get a second opinion on whether my thoughts on freeness are true. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I thought the words could be copyrightable since it is the company's name. I am not great when it comes to copyright law, but I'm learning when it comes to images. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that this is a case of {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Okie dokie then, I will change the licensing template to {{PD-textlogo}}. That should settle this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
{{done}} - I left the FURs for each page though, as I wasn't sure what to do with those. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaving the FURs does not harm anything as they still provide trail for publishing. Note that this would also be a candidate for commons too. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with Commons picking this one up. Thanks for your help, Masem. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:01, 15 June 2014 (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:TLC LA - from Commons.png

Consensus is the image passes the threshold of originality due to the reflective/shading around the letters. Changing the file to non-free. TLSuda (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the texturing and shading make this over the ToO? Werieth (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Two deletion discussions at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TLC LA.png determined that it was PD-text-logo. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
But it was deleted on commons for being non-free. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the editor who did that didn't check the deletion discussions first. I'm not sure what's happening at commons at the moment. It's become quite weird over there of late. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
First consider that the same editor (and only that editor) at commons responded, so we're not talking a strong consensus there to keep. Second , the argument on one of those mentions the logo being in white/transpart so the block around it would be part of the font. That would make sense in previous versions of the TLC logo ([3] for example) where the font then is a exact 1-bit (2 color) image. But here with this new logo, between the red and the shadow gradient, those blocks can't be part of the font, so I would consider those commons deletion discussion null here.
If it was a simple drop shadow, or just a simple gradient, that would be fine, but now with the 3D effect and glossy edges, I'd have say this logo is past the TOO and has to be considered copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe so as well. I don't think I can reproduce this logo within a decent time frame using the graphics software I have. Therefore -IMHO- it is above TOO and due to the graphics used (3D, gradient) not PD-Text. --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Three comments. First, I consider the whole of each tile to be part of the font and therefore no part of the tiles can have a copyright, no matter how complex they are. I also think that even if you don't agree with that, you should take another look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:TOO#United_States. Note in particular the shading on the Arkansas map. Finally, note that the version of the logo that is currently in use does not have any shading -- the red is the same throughout, see http://www.tlc.com/. It is entirely possible that the red shading was simply an artifact. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. "TLC", in this context and with this logo, originally was "The Learning Channel" and is USA based. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The commons example of the Arkansaw map has simple drop shadow and edge effects that any basic raster graphics program should support so there's no creativity in that, but in the case of this specific logo, that's far different. And in the logo that is presently at TLC I would completely agree that that is a font that includes the rounded-corner rectangle tile - it's effectively a 1-bit image with no shading or gradients (and even if not the case, those flat-color tiles are too simple too). But in this specific image above its clearly not artifacts - the shading and color are intentional. The fact that the website for TLC has a clearly uncopyrightable version of the logo (within the US at least), we should be using that instead of this logo which has clear problems. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 12 June 2014 (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.

Persona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth

The multi-character shot and the two promotional images fail WP:NFCC and are not necessary. TLSuda (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not seeing justification for 5 non-free images in a movie article. Werieth (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Poster art is fine. The multi-character shot is not necessary as we have List of Persona 3 characters (based on the video game that is the basis of the film) that can be linked to to identify the characters (and where there's already a good group image shot there). The single-character shot in maniacal laughter is fine, as there's a section discussing how they had to modify the character and give him odd traits. Neither promotional image (the street-side screen or the billboard) are needed to note how the show was promoted. So of five, only two images are justified. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 10 June 2014 (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:Leena Chandavarkar.jpg

Best suited for FFD since a single image/single use issue. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 18 June 2014 (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:SS PrincessMary Victoria 14Feb1915 (3).jpg

Consensus is that due to the lack of good original sourcing/copyright information, the image is definitely non-free and therefore falls WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violates WP:NFCC#8, except in SS Princess Mary.

Dubious assessment of WP:NFCC#1. It says that there almost certainly is no free equivalent because it shows an event from 1915. However, the person who wrote the fair use rationales didn't specify why that makes the person believe that there is no free equivalent. For example, if photographs were published somewhere in 1915, those would be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Also, Canadian photographs from 1915 are usually in the public domain in the United States even if not published before 1923, for other reasons. There is no information about the publication history of this photograph, so we can't say anything about the copyright status of this photograph, but the makes no indication that he has checked for example contemporary newspapers to see if whether contained photographs of the event. Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[4] This might be a free equivalent if I'm reading the bottom section appropriately. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at that photo last night and wondering the same thing. Under "rights" it's labelled "public domain" once and "under copyright" twice. Can anyone make sense of this? The Canadian photographer died in 1988[5] so that might explain the 2038 dates but I see photos taken before 1949 are PD in Canada[6] which might explain the "[before 1949]" tag. I have no idea how this meshes with US copyright. It would be nice to sort this out because it looks a wonderful archive. However, I found [7] with an exact creation date of 11 April 1914 so that must surely(?!) be PD. Thincat (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this right? Until 1999, photos in Canada became PD 50 years after creation. Any Canadian photo taken before 1949 remains PD in Canada because the 1999 law did not restore. If one was PD in Canada at URAA it will be PD in USA. Photos taken before URAA-50 (1946) will be PD in USA and Canada. Publication date is irrelevant. Hence the photo being originally discussed here is PD in USA and Canada and so free for WP and Commons purposes. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Photos published before the URAA that were PD in Canada will be PD in the US; unpublished works published 1989-2002 will be in copyright until at least 2047 (or life+70, whichever is greater), and work published after 2002 will get a simple life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
If the photograph was published in 1924 or later, and in compliance with all US copyright formalities, then the copyright expires in the United States 95 years after publication. Other expiration dates apply if the photograph was first published in 1978 or later. In this case, we do not have any information about the publication history of the photograph. The photograph was not copyrighted in Canada on the URAA date, but this does not prevent it from being copyrighted in the United States for other reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thank you for your interest but I'd like to follow up on this. Let's consider the hypothetical of a Canadian photo created in 1940 and fallen into PD in Canada in 1990 and never published or registered in USA. At URAA it had not been published (say) but it was published in 2010 (say). Note 10 of Hirtle[8] (if he means it to apply here to post-1978 publication) leaves me unclear. Hirtle from his tables (ignoring the footnote) says 70 pma. For better(?) clarity I have referred where Hirtle refers me.[9] That says for URAA restoration all of four criteria must apply. "2 The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection." For Canada, the date when we apply the criteria is January 1, 1996. The photo's term of protection had expired by then so it was in Canadian PD so copyright was not restored. @Stefan2: Of course if any photo has been published or registered in the US in some way that it is still in US copyright, it is still in US copyright. Thincat (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) URAA brings back photographs to copyright if the copyright previously has been terminated in the United States for some reason. Before 2003, no unpublished works could enter the public domain in the United States, regardless of the source country of the work. For Canadian works (excluding pre-1972 sound recordings), it works like this:
  1. First published before 1924: The work automatically entered the public domain in the United States upon publication due to lack of an international treaty between the United States and Canada.
  2. First published between 1924 and 28 February 1989: There was a treaty in force between Canada and the United States. Canadian authors had to comply with the same copyright formalities as United States authors, or else the works entered the public domain in the United States. If a Canadian work was first published during this period and never fell into the public domain in the United States, then the work is still copyrighted in the United States, regardless of what Canadian law says about the copyright status of the work.
  3. First published on 1 March 1989 or later: Automatic protection through the Berne Convention with no formalities required. Such works are still protected by copyright in the United States unless they meet the terms in the {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-US-architecture}} templates.
  4. Never published: Such works are only in the public domain in the United States if they meet the terms in the template {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
  5. URAA rule: If a work was first published in 1921 or later, and still copyrighted in Canada on 1 January 1996, and had fallen out of copyright under 1) or 2) above, then the work was brought back to copyright in the United States on 1 January 1996. Such works remain copyrighted in the United States until the standard U.S. copyright term has expired. Currently, only such works which were published in 1921 and 1922 have seen their U.S. term expire. The URAA rule has no effect on works which, on 1 January 1996, were still copyrighted per 1)-4) above; such works remain protected under the old rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll think about all that (but it'll probably take some time!). Thincat (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the lack of information supplied for this photo makes judging the copyright impossible. Unfortunately the over-reaching precautionary principle (which applies at commons, no such rule on en.wiki) means that if you are infringing until proven innocent... and like the CRA, you are under the onus. That said, if any proof can be provided that this was taken by a military service person on duty, the publication date is irrelevant and the media would be {{PD-Canada-crown}}. With no knowledge of who the author is, however, nothing is certain. The fact that the source link no longer works doesn't help matters. I will check my archival access for the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail to see if anything turns up... if it's in a newspaper from that date, it's certainly public domain. The Vancouver Archives entry unfortunately doesn't help, as they may be unpublished photos donated upon the author's death. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There are many photographs of SS Princess Mary in the Vancouver archive. I have checked and none of the photographers died before 1944 so, per {{PD-US-unpublished}}, would not be PD in US even if we were sure they had not been published until recently. So, evidence of publication does indeed seem necessary. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Floydian: Note that {{PD-Canada-Crown}} always demands a publication date as the copyright expires 50 years after publication. In the United Kingdom, this cancels all other terms (such as life+70 years), even if those terms are shorter than publication+50 years. I don't know whether the same also applies to Canada. In my opinion, this is an error in the copyright laws of the United States and many Commonwealth countries, since the laws do not acknowledge that works should get a reasonably short term even if the work never is published. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be much easier to locate a published photo in the circumstances of it being a military work, and almost certainly published within the year after it was taken. AFAIK, without publication, crown copyright is indefinite. To be honest, I think it not right myself that something created using taxpayer dollars not be openly available to the taxpayers. Oh well. I couldn't find anything in the Toronto Star unfortunately. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:42, 14 June 2014 (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:Tank Man Long Shot by Stuart Franklin.jpg

Deleted as orphaned fair use. TLSuda (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The copyright status is similar to the other more famous picture in the article Tank Man where the result of that discussion was single use only, however this picture is used in multiple articles. We should probably discuss allowed usage of another copy of this picture to see the single use principle should be applying to that one too.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One version of the wider shot that shows the entire column seems completely reasonable alongside the one that is a close up of the man in front of the first 4-some tanks. The photographic nature of this event (the fact that we have 4 different photographers, with photos that may have not made it out of the country after the raid) is well-discussed, and I think one close-up , and one wider shot is reason. But the longshot should only be used on this article, no other ones. The tighter shot may have some additional uses, but that's not at issue here. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Reuters says the author is Sin Wai-keung [10]. by the way. But I think does not change the fact that the file's use outside the Tank Man article contracts an early discussion on Jeff Widener's shot.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Franklin denies taking this shot so the Reuters attribution may be correct. I have had some correspondence with Franklin and his agent over this photo. Neither understands Wikipedia procedures (as, perhaps, neither do I). Franklin supplied the photo that is currently on the site. I have edited the photo in question here to indicate that it is not Franklin's and that the site which originally posted it (which is my own blog) no longer has the picture. I believe it would be helpful to change the file name so as not to include "stuart_franklin".CCBC (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Copying from User talk:Stuartfranklin: I cannot accept this ruling. It cannot be "fair use" to attribute inaccurately a photograph taken by someone else to me!! This is insane. What kind of encyclopedia would accept this? This is Stuart Franklin again trying to get the stuartfranklin.jpg deleted. The wide horizontal photograph that is attributed to me and is up on Wikipedia is not my photograph. All my photographs from the Tiananmen Square Tank Man series are visible on the Magnum Photos (www.magnumphotos.com) archive. Please choose one from here to illustrate the entry, not a photograph that is not mine!!! I have tried so hard to make this clear. Thank you.--Skyfiler (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This is now up for speedy deletion as not having a source. Why do we need to delete it for an unknown source when it's being used under fair-use anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Now it is clear the picture is from a press agency usage without sourced commentary of the photo fails WP:NFC#UUI#6. --Skyfiler (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Relevance? Why is it up or speedy deletion as an unknown source, if it's being used under fair-use anyway? This is unaffected by whether we know the source or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The photos here are certainly subject of commentary (there's a section of the article dedicated to four photographers and the steps they had to do to secure the photos from being seized); the entire article is arguably not about the person who stopped the line of tanks, but the image of that actually happening in the midst of everything going on at that time. We would allow its use under NFCC#2 for this reason. Preferably if one or more of the available images are outside of a press agency's control, that would be all the better to use that since no single photo appears more discussed than any other, but this is not clear, and assuming that they were all under a press agency, there's no harm using one or two here on an article about this incident. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The picture is claimed to be used, but not actually used in the Tank Man article. I am talking about its usage elsewhere. But I agree the Tank Man article is putting undue weight on press photos and fails WP:NFCCP: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.--Skyfiler (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (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:Doctor Balli.jpg

Image is being used within policy. TLSuda (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This simply uses "n.a." as the answer for both "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities." Holdek (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a result of the file upload wizard, depending on what options are selected, the user may not be prompted for entering the data for these fields. The file's usage appears legit (per article, the doctor is dead so no free alternative), but yes, the rational could be improved. It would be BITEy to try to delete because of those fixable issues. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
My concern is that permission has not been granted by the copyright holder (El Sol de México Monterrey Newspaper) for the photograph to be used by Wikipedia. --Holdek (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, fair use law does not require us to obtain permission to use the image as long as the image is used within certain terms (eg, within educational context) so the absence of that is okay. But that said, and I can't find the original source, the issue is whether this is a photo by a press agency who's commercial interest is in selling the photo, or just a photograph that the newspaper itself took. If the former, then by NFCC#2 we can't use it. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a free replacement or see evidence of an agency. There is a far better recent photo (with a copyright notice sometimes). I've noted this on the file description. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that other people on the Web are using it, perhaps paying for it, perhaps not, is a legitimate rationale for why Wikipedia is allowed to use it. Also, the source says "Internet," which is extremely general. Holdek (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (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.

Lego Marvel Super Heroes

Consensus to remove Dev image and miniseries cover. TLSuda (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article seems to have too many unfree images. For example, we do not need to see the cover art of the alternative product at the end of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Main game cover is fine, as well as the first screenshot. The playable character screen, or the dev image (when the article lacks any development section) are inappropriate. The cover of a non-notable miniseries is unnecessary as well. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 6 June 2014 (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:Chongzheng Primary School Logo.jpg

Deleted as orphaned fair use. TLSuda (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Used twice in the article, but the fair use rationale only covers one use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed one of the uses, but the article was at AfD and has since been deleted. The image was tagged as orphaned and should have been deleted on 18 June but, at this time, has not been deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (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:New-years-day-video.jpg

Blatant WP:NFCC failure. Deleted. Side note: Although this is not a deletion board, consensus can be determined here (or anywhere) to delete a file. TLSuda (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8 but users are ignoring policy. Werieth (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Even what is described in the video (unsourced as it is) doesn't require us to see the video image to justify it under NFC. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Why is it not tagged for speedy deletion again?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: on what grounds? Werieth (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no CSD for files where the reason to delete is NFCC#8, due to the subjective nature of that. If anything, the only CSD for files are blatant copyright violations; nearly all other "speedies" for files are delayed deletion that gives the uploader/users 7 days to fix before their misuse is reviewed and subsequently deleted, and the reasons to use delayed deletion are again limited to nearly highly objective cases (free replacement, orphaned files, missing license tags, etc.) --MASEM (t) 01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Di-fails NFCC}}. Or, send it to WP:FFD. NFCR is too slow and too light for this one. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Using "Di-fails NFCC" for anything strictly-NFCC#8 related would incite a riot given past actions by some editors and reactions to that. The Di- set of templates have been used for what is considered more "objective" NFCC handling, but where there remains a possibility of fixing it. I don't deny FFD is the better venue for this specific case (NFCR should not be handling cases of "one image, one use" since the likely outcome is deletion which is an admin action). --MASEM (t) 01:54, 20 June 2014 (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.

Gingham Check

Second version removed per consensus. TLSuda (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No need for two vastly identical pictures of the version by JKT48. Not sure if we need any at all, since it seems to be a non-notable side product. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One or the other; both are not needed since we're not talking about distribution in different reasons where alt cover art may be used. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (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.

Total Drama (season 5)

Reduced to three non-free files upon specific discussion on content. TLSuda (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I cant see justification for using 5 non-free files on a TV show season article. Werieth (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The current article was a recent merge of two different articles as you can see here, and here. All of the images from both articles were obviously merged into one place, and if this is a problem, then we can combine some images together to reduce the non-free file count. Giggett (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You cannot combine non-free media to reduce the issue. You either need to use a combined image provided by the copyright holder, or use fewer images. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the total count is as important as what the images are used for. The title cards should stay: since the show uses two distinct title cards through the season, it makes sense to show both under the established purpose of identification. The two images of the island should go: I'm not seeing where that really adds anything to our understanding of the subject. The images of the character are a mixed bag. The image of Mike/Mal has enough commentary, both in- and out-of-universe, to justify its use to show how the animators are capturing two personalities in one body. It's probably also reasonable to have the full cast shot for the second half of the season, since they're new characters to the series; however, the current image is so watermarked by another website that I don't think that image should be used.
So, I disagree with the suggestion that five is too many as an overall count, but I agree that, on review, not every image is necessary, which would reduce the count. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I'll remove the 2 island pictures and revert to the old TDPI cast image for now without the watermarks, so that reduces the non-free image count to just 3. Giggett (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2014 (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:PfeifferCatwoman.jpg

Consensus is usage in Latex clothing is inappropriate per WP:NFCC#1. TLSuda (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Im not seeing justification for its usage in Latex clothing Werieth (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Clear case where a link to the Batman movie is appropriate. Plenty of examples of latex clothes there in the PD already that we don't need a non-free here. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I agree. Yank it per snowball clause  . But what about Catwoman article?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2014 (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:Mammoth Records.gif

Image is below TOO and is therefore PD. TLSuda (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NFCC#9 if unfree, but maybe below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

NFCC#9 – do you mean the image being used in the sandbox draft? Anyway, I think it's not original enough for copyright at all. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. You may not use non-free files in the user namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2014 (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:Horowitzmosesphoto.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC#1. TLSuda (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Free images are available on commons, as mentioned in the FUR, them being "unflattering" is not relevant. Even File:Malice in the Palace.JPG could have a cropped version for use to illustrate.Fails NFCC#1. kelapstick(bainuu) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, given that some of the Stooges' films are out of copyright, it should be trivial effort to find a shot that works fine, so just because it hasn't been uploaded doesn't make the NFC allowable. Clearly replaceable. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 14 June 2014 (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:METRO Vehicle2.jpg

File deleted Werieth (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


An image of a bus that's part of an extant bus line at an extant station is almost certainly replaceable with a free alternative. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've just replaced it with a free file. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2014 (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:METRO Vehicle1.jpg

File deleted Werieth (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


An image of two trains at a station on a brand new train line is almost cetainly replaceable with a free file. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is nothing copyrightable in this image that would justify a fair use claim. Therefore it is replaceable by a free photo. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2014 (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:Anarchylogo.jpg

Clearly simple text. Will repair, per snowball clause  . (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, below TOO and should be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 20 June 2014 (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:AmeristarAirCargo.jpg

Clearly simple text. Will repair, per snowball clause  . (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claimed to be unfree, but is probably below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_52&oldid=1138556119"