Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 60

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

→

File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg

Kept, PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 13 March 2015 (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.

It is claimed that this is from 1856. Why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - The image has no verifiable source information for the original work (and author details are dubious for any possible "Röhling" or "Röchling"). Current rationale and size violate WP:NFCC, but even on a "free" claim the information is too thin and contradicting to keep it - Commons has a few Leuthen images with (slightly) better documentation and style. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Has been updated with detailed background information (thanks) - keep. GermanJoe (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2015 (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:Prussian Infantry Regiment No. 3 attacking during the battle.jpg

Deleted, modern work and no credible NFC claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 13 March 2015 (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 claimed to be from 1850. Why is it claimed to be unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete - The image has no verifiable source information for the original work. Current rationale violates WP:NFCC, but even on a "free" claim the information is too thin to keep it - Commons has a few Leuthen images with (slightly) better documentation and style. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. This is almost certainly from this book [1][2], first published in 1986. Günter Dorn appears to be a present-day militaria illustrator; can't find any indication that the illustrations are significantly older than the book. The style makes it extremely unlikely that it should be from the mid-19th century as claimed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 13 March 2015 (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:Vivian James.jpg

Kept in one article, possibly free, but also legitimate as NFC in that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 13 March 2015 (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've tagged this copyrighted image for deletion because it is not critically discussed in the article, and tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone. It therefore fails NFCC #1 and #8. Discussed with the uploader, but he is convinced any sourced commentary on the image is sufficient, despite what WP:NFCC says about the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", something this image does not fit. Dreadstar ☥ 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Image might be better over at GamerGate where there is actually discussion about it. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Suffers the same issues in that article too; the image tells us nothing that cannot be told using words alone, and it is not critically discussed. There's nothing significant about the image. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, there is critical discussion about the character at the article:

After 4chan members donated over $5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign they were allowed to create a character who would appear in the winning game. The character created by 4chan, named Vivian James as a play on "video games", was designed to appear like a normal female gamer. Vivian James was criticized by Allegra Ringo of Vice as "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". TFYC responded to criticism of its association with GamerGate and the related harassment of Quinn by offering to sell Vivian James t-shirts with profits going to iFred, a charity Quinn was supporting.

There is actually more commentary about the character than at the GamerGate article. I mean, even more could be added given some of what is said in the sources, but there is already plenty of critical commentary regarding the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The mascot's origins has curious origins which are intertwined with the convoluted course of the GamerGate, and indeed has become emblematic of GamerGate as a whole. While I've noticed a lot of Vivian James avatars on Twitter on #GamerGate, she has also been illustrative, literally, in mainstream press coverage. It's fair to say both that she has taken on a life of her own, and that it would detract from the article not to include an image of her. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that the mascot is more an issue that arose from GamerGate, even though it was more connected with a project by TFYC. It definitely should not go in both, but I do feel the rationale is stronger for the GG article due to it being made in response to all the events there. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the character going in both? Vivian James is more closely associated with TFYC in reliable sources and is supposed to appear in the game they eventually produce but is no less significant to GamerGate. As far as coverage in reliable sources, I would say Vivian James is less significant in the GamerGate, but the same non-free image can appear in more than one article. We wouldn't provide for the possibility otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We look to minimize non-free use - if only one image will work, then we do that and link from the other case. She's appropriate in one article, but not both. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What this needs is comments from editors uninvolved in the GamerGate, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion; unlike the three involved editors above who have commented thus far - one of whom is the uploader. Dreadstar ☥ 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Be aware I'm a frequent NFCR reviewer too and been involved in too many discussions to count. I'm speaking from that perspective here. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is of questionable copyright status (as the hivemind of /v/ or /pol/ or whichever board made it is unknown) and it seems superfluous whenever it's added to the pages in question. The subject of the file may be mentioned in these articles, but Dreadstar is correct that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. The content quoted by The Devil's Advocate may be discussion of the subject of the file, but it's not critical commentary of the file itself but the subject of the file. Describing the character as being created by a group or it being an antifeminist spite mascot does not qualify for critical discussion of the image.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems inadequate to meet Fair Use guidelines and absent any notion of who holds the copyright, it does not meet the criteria for enhancing any articles on either topic. It's just an attack cartoon. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously someone who dismisses it as an "attack cartoon" is only thinking about our non-free content criteria . . . The NFCC does not mean an exact depiction of something needs to be the subject of critical commentary. The character is the subject of critical commentary and I think it is important for people to see what this "anti-feminist icon" looks like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As the image has definitely been published, and there's enough RS to direct its origins somewhere on 4chan, I'm not seeing any immediate copyright issues to prevent us from considering is as NFC. The NFC points still need to be determined, of course, but we're not talking that we cannot adequetely explain a source and give a license for. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The character and all art handed to The Fine Young Capitalists are under public domain. They themselves can, and have on multiple occasions, confirmed this.^[1]^[2] Additionally, none of the sources cited on the file's page specify that the character or the art would be owned or used by 4chan, merely that it was created by its users. Yet the file is listed as being under copyright and owned by 4chan. 4chan, LLC does not claim copyright ownership to any content created by its users. 80.223.154.197 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is confirmed, the rest of the discussion is moot. The Twitter link is to the same account that released the original art, which is also the same one linked from the group's official web page, and says "Characters's public domain so it's fine" as a reply to someone talking about Vivian. The Tumblr post explicitly says "TFYC does not own Vivian James, we consider her to be public domain" in a post created by thefineyoungcapitalists, so it seems legit. Do we have confirmation that this Tumblr account is official? Diego (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they tweeted about it when they first created it 80.223.154.197 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

The inclusion of the image does not meet our NFCC imo. The image appears to have been added to the article purely for decoration. Fails NFCC #1: Its inclusion does not tell us anything that cannot be told using words alone. The fact that the character exists can be adequately covered using words. Fails NFCC #8: It does not increase our understanding of the subject of the article, which is the group The Fine Young Capitalists. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about other people's motivations. I added it because the character is prominently associated with the group and its involvement with 4chan per reliable sources and is discussed by said sources. It also is kind of important since saying "4chan designed a female character" does not adequately convey the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, artwork cannot be replaced by prose. Now...whether or not its exclusion would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject is another matter. Not sure about that at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

""Artwork cannot be replaced by prose."", where in Wikipedia policy are you getting that from? I don't see anything like that in WP:NFCC. Please clarify. AFAICT, it's a simple cartoon drawing of a girl, nothing educational or significant to the understanding of the article's subject that I can see. Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me exactly where it says I have to argue with only policy. This is a matter of meeting criteria and not entirely about a policy based reason. Yes...as I said, generally speaking artwork cannot be conveyed in written words and carry the same understanding to the reader that the artwork can. That is generally accepted and understood by the Wikipedia community and through a wide range of consensus discussions here and elsewhere. What you see is not the exact issue here. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're free to invoke WP:IAR and even A picture is worth a thousand words, but that attempt is guaranteed not override Wikipedia:Policy, wherein it describes how community consensus, best practices and the law create policies like WP:NFCC. Feel free to try and change WP:NFCC policy to fit your views that art conveys more than words, so fair-use laws can be ignored. Heck, I'd love that, I've had many images rejected because words have been judged to be sufficient to replace images (art). Dreadstar ☥ 05:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well...you are NOT welcome to tell me what to do or that I am evoking policy or guidelines that I am not. The consensus of editors has been that for the most part, artwork cannot be described with prose. But that is not even an argument to keep the image just that in general it is not the best argument to use with artwork that it can be replace with prose.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You, um, are joking, right? Me tell you what to do? I think we have a communication problem here, when I say "you're free to do X", that's not telling you what to do, it's saying you're free to do as you like...which I guess is sorta telling you what to do, but that 'doing' is whatever you want... I think I'm done with you, carry on with others. Dreadstar ☥ 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the fair use rationale with references from three reliable sources (on of them The Independent) covering the relevance of the character as the mascot of the 4chan /v/ board, and thus their primary means of identification. I've used the logo template, just like Cobi does, as apparently there isn't a mascot-specific one except for teams; I'm not sure if the logo template applies, but the rationale definitely does, as Vivian James has been recognized by the RSs as "the primary means of visual identification" of the /v/ board, and that is an accepted NFC criteria per WP:NFCI#2 and Wikipedia:Logos. Diego (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Independent did not mention TFYC so I removed that mention, though it can definitely be used in the GamerGate article for that purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Diego (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Source", for the fair use rationale template, is intended for the source of the image, not a source that discusses the image. The source for the image needs to be chagned to vice.com. The Forbes article states that this was a mascot for a game, not for 4chan or 4chan /v/ board. We don't have an article on 4chan /v/ board, so the image currently qualifies for removal under speedy deletion criterion F6 for the article 4chan. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. There's a broken template on the file page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken template, as no one else did. You're right about the URL, I didn't notice that Vice includes the link to TYFC's twitter, only that the crop uploaded here is the one by Forbes, and Vice had just the face; I've updated it too. We have The Independent identifying the mascot as an emblem for 4chan campaign, so also being a mascot for the game is not incompatible - it can be both. Speedy deletion tags should only be removed by an administrator. I absolutely don't see it that way, nor have ever seen anything in that regard; the text in the template itself is addressed to whomever has "successfully addressed the concern", which IMO I did. Diego (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Discussion of people making an image is not the same thing as discussing the image itself. I see nothing in the content above that is aided by having the image other than just normal illustration. That is not sufficient to pass NFCC imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Where in the criteria does it actually say the image must be discussed to used?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember, ALL NFCC criteria must be met. NFCC #8 more specifically Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion What understanding would the reader have about this topic that they would not have if the image were missing? What discussion of the image is there? Note the "only" in the identification bit. Is this the "only" way to identify the image?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that is simply not what that says at all. First that section makes it clear from the top that the two most common "circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are..." and then lists those two common circumstances. Nowhere does that state those two instances are the only reason non free images may be used or that if those two circumstances are not met that the image cannot be used. I am sorry but our non free content criteria in no ways states that as an absolute...only that "[M]eeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content" and that we determine such by "principles of due weight and balance."--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the character. It is unlikely there will be discussion of a specific image of Vivian James, as is the case with most images of fictional characters. In the case of fictional characters a non-free image serves as an exemplar. For instance, critical commentary on a particular costume or design for a character may be illustrated by any official image of the character with that design or costume. You are unlikely to find a source discussing the exact image you are using because it is interchangeable with any number of examples of the design or costume and is not really the primary copyright concern. Copyright most specifically applies to the design of the character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As another data point, if Vivian was a notable character for her own article, we would allow a non-free image of her in that for identification. Can that be done? Arguably yes - there's enough data for notability here. However, separating her from the discussion of either TFYC or GamerGate would be rather duplicative, but because she would be notable for her own article, we would allow a non-free in one of those places as well. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't even come close to passing WP:GNG. and since it's regarding a WP:BLP, that's another huge hurdle it would fail to pass. That's something else to consider here, BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's multiple secondary sources talking about the creation and use of the character, and while there are BLP reasons that led to its creation, the character itself is not tied to anything directly. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC and even WP:TALK. The cartoon drawing is not notable, fails non-free, and is an attack on a BLP. Clearly and undeniably. Your data point actually goes to deletion, not an article. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, your original reasoning is not to NFC criteria and notability is not a factor for inclusion in an article but whether a stand alone article is needed for the subject. You do not appear to have demonstrated the BLP concern you have. The one thing that could possibly be accurate is that it may not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" but I am not clear on whether that is accurate either with this image on the current article.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read my first comment here, it does indeed talk about NFC criteria. My comment about notability is regarding the suggestion above by User:Masem that the image may deserve it's own article. The image fails NFCC criteria, period. Please stop attempting to twist my words, I never said notability should keep the image out of an article, I know quite the opposite, "They do not limit the content of an article or list". Please read more carefully in the future. Dreadstar ☥ 05:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect no, it does not fail NFC criteria...period (as you state). I am not attempting to twist your words but trying to understand your reasoning which I feel you have not fully supplied. --Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read what you wrote, it appers to accuse me of using WP:N to keep the image out of the article, else why you reference my 'original reasoning' not being with NFCC, followed by WP:N is not a reason to...well, hell, this is ridiculous, it's clear what you wrote. And yes, we disagree in NFCC as it regards to this image. As far as BLP concerns, there are names of living persons associated with it. But BLP wasn't my main argument, I think that much is clear. Dreadstar ☥ 05:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the full section here but thanks for providing something to look into the BLP issue you claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I think we have a communication gap, I don't know what it is that you think I'm missing. But let's let it lie and let others chime in. Dreadstar ☥ 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well...that catches me up on a few things on DRN lately...but I am still not clear as to whom this artwork is supposed to be a BLP violation of.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying who, but if you know the subject matter, it's pretty clear who is closely associated with it. In any case, it's not the main or even secondary reasoning for deleting the image. Dreadstar ☥ 05:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well of course that is up to you but we have discussed what the specific BLP violations are in the past...as that is the only way to determine if there is a violation. If that is truly uncomfortable please email me the details as I do find BLP violation an important enough issue to take very seriously. However, your original post stated "because it is not critically discussed in the article". However, that is not a part of NFC criteria. Now...we are certainly not in agreement as to whether artwork can or cannot be conveyed in words alone. I feel strongly that it cannot. I urge you to take a moment to e-mail me the BLP violation details. I got my e-mail up and running again...might as well use it now!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done like 4 minor edits to the whole GamerGate article, and like people have said, TFYC mentioned it's in the public domain. Also the info in the image is WRONG. Copyright isn't atributted to 4chan as an entity. Any content created there is owned by those who submit it, and as such is their responsibility. Also this isn't the character itself, it's not the exact likeness that will be featured in the game, it's a sketch, of which there are plenty (countless) of. The image serves its purpose to show what's described as an "every-girl of sorts, and maybe not what you’d expect from 4chan" and criticized for "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". Someone reading this would seriously be curious what's her likeness. Loganmac (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

Dreadstar, I'm, like, a stickler on NFCC#8 and frivolous use of images with very weak claims here, but there is actual discussion from sources of the character, so showing what the character looks like is a reasonable allowance under NFCC#8. There is no immediate BLP violations, unless the character is meant as an unflattering mockery of a specific person, which doesn't appear to be, even if the character was created in an issue riddled with BLP. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a stickler for NFCC#8 is not an issue with any non free content, as long as it isn't stricter than it is written into the guidelines. But for the most part on this...I fully agree with Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the case against this image on NFCC 1/8 is a slam dunk, but I'm also not seeing a whole lot of commentary on the character and little commentary on the appearance. I'm inclined to agree with dreadstar, but I understand and can sympathize with masem's point above. Soo... it's a weak delete for me. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on the exact appearance of the character is not inherently important. If you think saying the character is an "every-girl of sorts and not maybe what you'd expect from 4chan" or saying "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists" does not demand illustration then, well, I don't know what does. More commentary could be added, but the article isn't very long and what we have already satisfies NFCC#8.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I am considering if one could make an article on the character (not that we have to, but if possible), as we generally do allow one nonfree image of a notable character in the context of discussing that character, even if there is no specific reference or details to the appearance of the character. The character is likely notable (several secondary sources talking about her) so this would mean that it is reasonable to include that image somewhere associated with the discussion of the character. Whether that's TFYC or GamerGate, that's the question. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh. It's a character for a not yet created game, descriptions of which appear to mainly be used to make 4chan sound awesome. I don't think it demands illustration in any strong manner. That said, it's not devoid of secondary sources discussing the character (which would only really discuss the image as the game isn't out yet). So I'm not going to the wall for deletion but I haven't been convinced we need a non-free file for the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WRT the 4chan article, it used to have a thorough description of how 4chan was in the middle of the controversy and the character was spiting feminists, but someone decided it wasn't relevant to the topic. Heh.

In any case, it seems confirmed that the character (and this very same image in particular) is in the public domain, so there would be no need to treat is as non-free. Diego (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Where is it confirmed that the image is PD? If so, that would short circuit this entire discussion (a good thing!). Protonk (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

See the links right above Arbitrary break 1, TYFC say that the character is in the free domain in their official Twitter stream. Diego (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Hmm. So here's the problem. the statement on tumblr is hard to parse. Did they "own" the character (or more importantly, the work that we have uploaded to wikipedia now) and then release it to PD? Or did they always consider it in the PD because it came from /v? If the former is true, we can cite something indicating as much and re-tag the image. If the latter is true (which, unfortunately, is likely) then it's more of a case of a misunderstanding of the public domain than it is a claim that the image is owned by no one. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The character was created so that TFYC could include it in a video game they're making, so the whole purpose of asking /v/ to design a character was so that they could own it. We can dig the terms on which the work was commissioned, so to say, but if TFYC say it's in the public domain, they probably have good reason to say that. Diego (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We really would like to have the original creator(s) state the PDness, unless there is documentation that it was created as a work for hire for TFYC (meaning that TFYC own the copyright in such case). Considering that the creator is likely someone that would not want their real name fully known but would need to state that for the clear evidence of PD, that's why doing the ORTS aspect would be the best approach - the name would be held on the system in private but validate they have made it PD. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As masem says, we'd need some evidence to declare it a work for hire in order to determine that TFYC can actually release it to PD. I'm skeptical of the claims we've seen from them so far because it's common to confuse "available on the internet" with PD and possible (though less common, as the applicability is pretty narrow) to misconstrue the nature of work for hire. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Found this. TFYC know who's the creator and got permission from them to use the image, they should be asked to contact them and confirm the license. Diego (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please direct them to WP:CONSENT if they do not wish to upload themselves. (We cannot use that alone as proof but that's a great step in the right direction). --MASEM (t) 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted earlier in this discussion, it'd really be a good idea if everyone who has had a hand in the GamerGate saga to kinda step off and let non-involved (yes Masem, even you, despite being an NFCR regular) editors review the matter. That's why I have been reading all of this but will not enter a keep/delete opinion. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO the aticle content itself borders on Coatrack.

The content the image illustrates is minor and veers off subject wise in an article that is already suspect. Adding the image visually and content wise weighs the article inappropriately towards content that is minor.The content, minor, not critical to the article, means the image as well is not critical commentary to the article as a whole. A picture is worth a thousand words. Add the pic and minor content takes on stature it doesn't have. I would delete.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

I am not involved in the dispute, and have not been a part of the DRN as I recused myself for having interactions with Masem (here in lots of discussions) and others on the request there. I stand firmly here, again reminding editors that NFCC has no comment "requirement"....however Protonk brings up the issue that concerns me the most: "Eh. It's a character for a not yet created game, descriptions of which appear to mainly be used to make 4chan sound awesome. I don't think it demands illustration in any strong manner." If this artwork is PD that still doesn't answer the underlying question...is the image needed and would its exclusion hinder the readers ability to understand the subject?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be endless, but FWIW and my two cents again, the image was specifically created as an attack on an individual and by association, similarly situated individuals, and hence it is a BLP violation to be including it in the articles where it is placed for that reason most of all, but it also adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the issue, particularly where it is peripheral to the main topic of the articles in question - and soap and coatrack guidelines both are implicated here. I also do not see a clear copyright release, in spite of claims made above. That's three strikes in my book, so it should be out. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your BLP reasoning is completely POV and has no basis in policy. The character does not represent, nor is the character meant to allude to, any living person. I should not that the extent to which non-free content contributes to the reader's understanding is influenced by the significance of the non-free content in relation to reliable sources. Since Vivian James is prominently associated with TFYC in reliable sources, moreso than with GamerGate, the significance of the character and the related commentary clearly meets the criteria. As to the disputed nature of copyright, there is no dispute that the character was designed by members of 4chan. Exact ownership is murky, though TFYC obviously feels it has no rights to the character, but it is not as though we do not know the origin of the character. Clearly those who designed it had every expectation and intention of people using the character freely without crediting them. That is not the same as releasing the character under a free license, but it should be another point of consideration here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, clearly associated with a BLP. And as far as "significance of the character and the related commentary ", it's a cartoon drawing of a woman with shoulder length red hair, with large sad almond shaped eyes wearing a green and white horizontally striped hoodie, with the hood down. There, free text that fully describes the image - if even that description of a mundane cartoon drawing is necessary; these free words show that no copyrighted image is necessary - there's nothing unusual or out of your imagination that needs the image presented to show - words alone do it. Ridiculous to assert otherwise, there's nothing special about that drawing at all. Dreadstar ☥ 02:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How is the character image a BLP problem? Yes, it is connected to a BLP issue, but specifically, does the image evoke any of the BLP (not NFCC) restrictions? Is it a grossly-malformed image of a living person or otherwise meant as derogatory to a specific person? No. There's no BLP restriction on including the image. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's "grossly malformed", it's clearly connected - there's just one BLP mentioned in the link I provided above, and anyone with knowledge of the entire issue knows exactly who is being referred to; right down to the red hair and the MD. The image also fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Dreadstar ☥ 02:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look anything like Zoe Quinn , if that's who you are referring to. Quinn has long had short-banged hair and dyes her hair a variety of colors. (And the other possible target, Anita Sarkeensian, is also nothing like that). Remember that whomever the artist was on 4chan designer to be an "everywoman of video gaming" (per that article, but also from others I've read) and I would doubt they would do that based on a person that was currently a subject of hot debate at 4chan (Quinn or Sarkeensian) --MASEM (t) 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It clearly was meant to attack Zoe; then the attack was broadened to include Anita, and then to a group of women. I don't see how this avoids BLP. But I'm done arguing the point, I'll let the uninvolved make the decision. You should too. The image is unnecessary to understand anything in any article of the proposed list of articles where certain others believe it should be included, You can argue the BLP issue till you're blue in the face, but it fails even the most basic non-free-content requirements. And just to be clear,a to me, it violates WP:BLPGROUP, since it is about a very small group of individuals. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hah, it's laughable, do the supporters of this mundane cartoon think it HONORS these women? Crazy... lol... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.164.124 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Female gamers" is a very small group of individuals? Diego (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(48% in the latest ESA study, fwiw). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeensian are well documented (beyond BLP), but that the image itself is nothing degrading or insulting immediately directly at them (it's not a perverted characterization, for example), I see no BLP issues with the image or discussion of the mascot. While we have to be fully aware writing these articles we'll encounter BLP, there is a different between making an unsubstantiated claim about either woman, and showing a mascot that was created in a reactionary response to some of the ideals these two have set out as to give the different impression of what a female gamer would look like. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The image as a visual aspect weights the article and emphasizes content that is of marginal significance. This image's effect is insidious, but it also clearly highlights insignificant content drawing attention to it.

BLP violations are not always blatant., and a BLP violation does not have to be negative , that may be an issue here, but it is not the only issue that points to a BLP violation as has been mentioned numerous times. And its naive of us to think an image does not have huge impact. If BLP violation is even suspected then the safest action is to remove until there is agreement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

The character is prominently associated with TFYC as evidenced by the fact most TFYC-related articles post-Vivian James discuss Vivian James in some significant manner. It is also a character that has become widely associated with GamerGate and thus warrants some attention in that respect. Any BLP argument is simply absurd and has no basis in a reasonable interpretation of the policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as do several other editors here. There is no overall agreement here and there are editors who see a BLP violation however subtle.That's enough to question the inclusion of the image and possibly to remove it until agreement is reached. People come first in terms of BLP and Wikipedia not satisfying a desire to include content no matter who is damaged. This image is blatant depiction of a female gamer and is a pejorative pictorial commentary on them. Vivien Jones is a small part of TFYC but in the Wikipedia article dominates the visual aspect of the article. Its wrong not absurd.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

A "pejorative pictorial commentary" on female gamers? Where the hell did you get that idea? The people above are arguing the image is associated with harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian, but that is just twisting the facts. Vivian James was designed by 4chan members after they donated a significant amount of money to TFYC. It is true that said 4chan members were donating money to TFYC because of their feud with Quinn, and 4chan members have played a major role in pushing the GamerGate controversy that began with talk of Quinn's personal ties to certain journalists, which has prompted some harassment of Quinn, but that is just absurdly indirect reasoning. The image of the character is in no way an attack on anyone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree but don't discount other opinions. The image impact is subtle - unsmiling, tired looking. Is that the iconic female gamer? Apparently so.(Littleolive oil (talk))

The problem is that no one is making the BLP claim you are making. Vivian James is not meant to make anyone look bad. It was a character literally created for the exact opposite reason. The people who created the character did it to make themselves look better because the character is so harmless and inoffensive in appearance.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the article and its sources and what I'm saying is that the pic is not as inoffensive as it seems to some of the people here. Others are alluding to the same. I'm traveling right now and can't continue this, Early flight tomorrow. I've had my say. All I ask is that it be considered as well as the undue weight argument. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

A removal on the grounds of BLP should be better argued than a simple "I think it may be offensive in an unspecified way", though. Something like explaining how and where it breaches BLP policy, at a minimum. Diego (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the usage in The Fine Young Capitalists, without knowing anything about the political backstory though. On the face of it, there is certainly enough critical commentary about this character there ("critical commentary" in the full sense of the word, including commentary on the aesthetics and creative choices in its design) to make visual illustration easily pass NFCC. If there are concerns about this coverage and the visual presence giving undue weight to some aspect of content that is "offensive" under a BLP angle, then that is an issue to sort out regarding the text of the article; as long as the text of the article is what it is, the image as such seems easily justifiable NFC-wise. (Note that I have removed the FUR templates regarding the other articles for which it was originally claimed too but where – quite rightly, it seems – it's no longer being used.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I bow to your greater experience in this area, FPAS - although I'm surprised that such a simple cartoon can't be described in words alone, which is free content. As for the BLP issue, I believe it violates WP:BLPGROUP in that it was clearly meant and is used to attack Zoe Quinn,[3], Anita Sarkeesian and a small group of female game developers [4]. Dreadstar ☥ 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems acceptable to me. Has anyone asked FYC to release it under CC-BY-SA? Incidentally is the best image to use? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Wait - how is it that the image is now deleted, when it's subject to a review process? Diego (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been restored. Diego (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Better question is how's the file still marked as non-free content and under review process more than 3 months later, when the specific file, and even the character as a whole, were confirmed to be public domain already in September. Days before most of the talk on this page, too. Quasipaa (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (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:Const-proc.png

For good, bad, or indifferent, on Wikipedia, we accept things that are public domain in the US, even if copyrighted in their home country. However, the coat of arms in the document - which you can see at File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg - is copyrighted. I have removed the image as the consensus below seems to be that if non-free, it is not valid fair use. --B (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2015 (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 (copyrighted) proclamation of the Canada Act 1982 is used in four articles. Are rationales for Constitution Act, 1982, Pierre Trudeau, Canadianism, and Title and style of the Canadian monarch valid? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no need for any of the image uses that are given. You don't need a non-free picture of a document to demonstrate the document exists. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The text is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-laws}}. The image parts of the PNG file are presumably copyrightable, though. The file is replaceable by the same text encoded in "text format". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The proclamation still belongs to copyright of either the United Kingdom or Canada. Perhaps we shall treat it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, right? And then treat it as non-free? --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal for speedy deletion, because the Proclamation, while under Canadian Crown copyright, is one of the types of documents which the federal government permits to be reproduced under the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, SI/97-5, which is cited in the wikipedia article on Crown copyright for Canada. Proclamations bringing an Act into force are an "enactment" as defined by the federal Interpretation Act, and therefore this Proclamation comes within the grant of reproduction in the Reproduction of Federal Law Order. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See {{db-f3}}. That permission does not permit modification. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help me a bit here. I'm new to this process for challenging the use/deletion of images, so I'm not familiar with the technical points. I did review that link you pointed at, and I do not see anything about modification there. In any event, how has the image been modified? My basic point is that the Canadian government has clearly recognised that legal documents, even if they are under Crown copyright, are of important public value and can be freely used and copied by members of the public; see the preamble to the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, SI/97-5: "Whereas it is of fundamental importance to a democratic society that its law be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law; And whereas the Government of Canada wishes to facilitate access to its law by licensing the reproduction of federal law without charge or permission;" The federal government has granted a licence for reproduction without charge or permission, because it is important for laws to be easily obtained. Since the holder of the copyright has granted that licence, because of a strong public policy interest in making laws readily available, why should Wikipedia be more restrictive, and frustrate that federal policy? It's not a breach of the Crown copyright for us to reproduce the Proclamation, so what other basis is being advanced to delete the file? I simply do not understand. (And in any event, the fact that we are having this discussion illustrates to me that this file is not a candidate for speedy deletion. For example, it is not an Unambiguous copyright infringement given the federal Order.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the "di-replaceable fair use", "di-disputed fair use rationale", "di-replaceable fair use disputed" banners (which are expiring now) so that this discussion will decide on the outcome. Now the choice is "free" or "non-free" - my view is that "free" is not an option - http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-97-5/FullText.html allows reproduction, but at Wikipedia we want more - images must be also available for commercial use and allowed to be derivatised. While the Canadian text does not mention commercial, it does not negate it - however it does say due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced - that (to me) equates to "no derivatives", and thus cannot be used here as a "free" image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I assume that means it's no longer on the "speedy deletion" track, and we have some more time to discuss? Could you elaborate, please, on what you mean by "no derivatives"; I'm not understanding what you mean. However, with respect to the issue of commercial use, in Canada the publishers of commercial legal texts regularly reproduce federal laws and judgments, for example in case-books and texts; one of the most common types of books on a statute is an annotated statute, where the text of the statute is reproduced, with detailed annotations after each section, explaining how it's been interpreted, and so on. So I would assume that commercial use is included in the grant under the federal Order. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

For a work to be free here on WP, we require that the copyright owner has licensed the work in a way that anyone, commercial or otherwise, can modify the work freely (without seeking permission). This language is not explicitly stated in the Canada's laws applying to copyright of state-issued documents. As such this cannot be free, and has to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 2 October 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.

MacArthur Geniuses

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 says the the pictures are licensed Creative Commons (see bottom of page) [5]. Does anyone have experience with our using these? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind - already uploaded to commons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 27 September 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.

Dance Again World Tour

Nominated File:Enrique Jennifer Tour Poster.jpg for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 13. Closing this discussion without deletion because notice was not given. --B (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (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 convinced that we need two different posters in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the second one down in the body is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 29 September 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:IDEO logo 2014.png

Converted to PD tag --B (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 5 October 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:Gulahmed gr.jpg

Closing discussion as it is now used only in article space. --B (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2015 (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 outside the article namespace. Is it copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be US-only PD-logo, but not worldwide. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 5 October 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:Energy Community Logo.jpg

Removed everywhere but Energy Community --B (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2015 (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.

Lacks FURs for several articles and is also used outside the article namespace. Is it copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Borders on PD-Text for the US but not sure about the EU in general. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

PD-text? You've got artistic arrangement with the multi-sized stars and the swooshy thing. Way too much non-text for this to be PD-text, and way too much originality for PD-ssimple. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 18 November 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:City Art.PNG

Image removed from offending articles, closing. --B (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2015 (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#1 in Land art. There are several alternative images in c:Category:Land art. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely fails Land Art. I'm also a bit concerned with the fact this was taken from the NYTimes, meaning it likely is a NFCC#2; it seems that we can take a free photograph (but a derivative work of the structure), making a more free-er image. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed from Land Art. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:46, 19 November 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:CartmanFuture.jpg

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 fails because it is a random screen shot from this episode and is not informative or the topic of discussion in the article. Gaff (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)~~

* answered in another forum. --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

- Is your intent to withdraw the nomination? If so, you can use {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to do so. --B (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2015 (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:Ordnance Survey of 1894–6.gif

Deleted by B (talk · contribs) as unused non-free media -- EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:18, 24 March 2015 (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.

Is this from 1894, or is it only based on a survey from that year? If the picture itself is from that year, then it should be either {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 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:Mykilogo.svg

Ronhjones (talk · contribs) deleted page File:Mykilogo.svg, F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days --EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:17, 24 March 2015 (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.

Superseded by File:Myki logo 2014.jpeg, image no longer used on any encyclopedia article sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 06:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this logo above the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US, or for that matter, Australia? (According to Commons, Australia has a very low TOO, so the logo is likely copyrightable in Australia. In the event that the logo design itself is below the TOO, there might be an issue as to whether the vectorization has its own copyright.) --Elegie (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2015 (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.

Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces

Retagged as PD US Only --B (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (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.

It has three logos. Is either of them eligible for copyright in India? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My read on India's copyright stance appears to be close to UK's, so yes they would be copyrightable there, but they do fall short of US thresholds, and would be PD-logo US Only here. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Taj Hotel Logo.svg and File:Gateway Hotels.png are almost certainly ineligible for US copyright and so are free works for EN Wikipedias purposes. Regarding File:Ginger Hotels Present Logo.png, the drop shadow probably pushes this above WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:37, 12 October 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.

Listicle

Removed both, deleted the Cosmopolitan image as it was not used in any other articles. --B (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (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 section deals with the use of the following images in Listicle:

Both images fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The headlines themselves are titles that are ineligible for copyright, so the headlines could be replaced by text. Also, in accordance with WP:NFCC#8, we don't need images to demonstrate that a listicle-style headline appeared on the cover of a magazine. (Additionally, I point out that the Men's Journal cover also appears in Men's Journal but has no WP:NFUR for use in that article.) RJaguar3 | u | t 03:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A free content mock-up could be made to demonstrate how the listicle can be presented on a magazine cover. Definitely failure of NFCC#1 for both. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 1 October 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.

Symphonic World Tour

Discussion moot - the article is deleted. --B (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2015 (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 probably don't need two non-free images in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Album cover is definitely not needed or appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 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:PowerHouse Books Logo.jpg

Closing old discussion - simple PD-logo. --GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. The original revision should be undeleted. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo is definitely below TOO, and can be marked free. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, re-tagged as "PD-logo" and "move to Commons" (US company). GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (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:Ginger Hotels Present Logo.png

Duplicate of the above, done. --B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 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:Gateway Hotels.png

Duplicate of the above, done. --B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 October 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:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Herald.png

Image is tagged as not copyrightable. --B (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (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.

Is this image copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

logotypes are trademarks and therefore non-free by definition. There are lots of logos on Wikipedia, however; they're presumed to be fine under fair use provisions. ARK (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-free is not defined by whether something is trademarked, only its copyright. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably fine. User:ARK is mixing up copyright law with trademark law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely under TOO for the US and should be free. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 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.

Scouting in New York

Closing discussion. There are no longer any non-free images in that article. I don't necessarily agree with the action here - Scouting in New York is essentially a merger of several different Boy Scout Council articles and if each council had its own article, they would, with little controversy, each contain the shoulder patch or other suitable logo - so I don't see a reason to not include them in the infoboxen in each individual section of the article. However, the images have been gone for two months and this discussion is both abandoned and moot. --B (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (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 non-free logos violate WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, all the logos of the separate scouting divisions are not required. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, just like the disagreement we had in Scouting in California ... and ALL THE OTHER state articles we've had this disagreement about. --evrik ^(talk) 03:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And in those cases the images were removed. If the individual division was notable for its own article, we'd allow its logo/badge to be used there, but this fails just like those others. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"We'd allow"? I forgot that you and Stefan are the tag team of deletionists. No, the California case was resolved by breaking apart the California into many smaller parts, which then upset Stefan who claimed that the smaller articles were not notable. No real consensus was made on the state articles. --evrik ^(talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

NFC is a strict policy, treated as highly as COPYVIO and BLP. Our goal is to minimize non-free works that are not contextually significant to the works at hand; non-notable charters of scouting groups do not need imagery to understand the encyclopedic details of the group. This is long-standing practice for articles of this sort. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is not a list, so the images are appropriate. Each council is its own entity. The images are contextual. Inclusion of the images is a long standing practice. --evrik ^(talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, this is a list - not necessary a "list article" but it is just listing out non-notable entities, and per WP:NFLISTS they are inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not a list. You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. So, in effect - the rest of your argument is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:NFLISTS: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic,..." which is what this article is. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  - Even if you were right and the article was a list, the images are used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic, so again, your point is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 04:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    - No, there is no discussion of the images of the badges, and as such they are present as decorative images. They are nice to see, but are not required at all for a reader to understand the separate charters of the scouts, in particular as there is no sourced discussion about the badges. This is use explicitly disallowed by NFCC#8 and the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    - And keep in mind, NFLISTS applies to "...articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic", not to simply list articles. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Images removed, will start on deletion. -- Gadget850^talk 10:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I'm about ready to just kill every image on Wikipedia and be done with it. -- Gadget850^talk 11:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  - At least one perfectly legitimate images such as the map showing the Girl Scout councils in New York was removed; the map is certainly legit for Wikipedia since I created it for Wikipedia and set the right permission for its use and I feel it contributes significantly to the article (at least when it large enough to read and not in an infobox). The code for the page was also broken (both now fixed). However for my two cents we have three issues (1) does a given image contribute significantly to the content of the article, (2) is it legal to use it for this purpose, and (3) is it appropriately displayed (good size, sufficient auxiliary information tying it to the article, for instance maps shouldn't be in infoboxes and I feel there seems to have been an overuse of infoboxes in this article and I don't think beside the question of legality whether some of the pictures were contributing enough). However deeper discussions of 1 and 3 belong elsewhere (such as the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting). --Erp (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This conversation was not done and should not have been prematurely closed. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of NFLISTS/NFCC8 and as such the discussion was closed correctly. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Only clear to the deletionists that haunt this page. I think that Gadget850 acted too soon and that this discussion should have taken longer than three days. These images aren't adornment, they are the logos of each of the non-profits. --evrik ^(talk) 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Resistance is futile. You will be deleted. I stopped uploading images to Wikipedia on March 22, 2013 (11 years ago) (2013-03-22) and it is just so refreshing to let go. -- Gadget850^talk 17:53, 12 January 2015 (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:Benjamin Orr (The Cars).jpg

Deleted (per IFD nomination) - non-iconic press agency photos are expressly forbidden by policy. Please note that I found two (all rights reserved) photos of him on Flickr. You could try contacting these flickr users in an effort to obtain appropriate permission. Also, on eBay, there is a guy selling prints of photos he took of Benjamin Orr over the years. You could try contacting him with a similar effort. Just because a free image can't be located in a Google image search does not mean one cannot be created. --B (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (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 replaced by a free image, which should be obtainable, since many, many fans would have taken similar photographs of a later 20th century rock star. This image does have commercial value, which should be respected. Gaff (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not have this expectation for a long-deceased person. This image is fine. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What about respect for commercial opportunities of the photographer? No comment made in the rationale. It's not like this guy died in 1900 either. I'm genuinely interested in this and not trying to antagonize. --Gaff (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is a NFCC#2 as Peripitus identifies below, then yes, we are not respecting the commercial opportunity, so this would be an image we'd remove - Gettys or other images like that are not allowed unless the image itself is the subject of discussion. But if we're talking some random person's image they have put up at Flickr under a non-free license (which is theres, not taken from elsewhere), then we are allowed to use it per fair use/NFC. Mind you, one should try to ask that user to release under a free license, but we cannot expect that person to necessarily want to comply with this in considering a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an NFCC#2 failure. Image is by pro photographer Ebet Roberts and licensed through Getty Images (see here) - Peripitus (Talk) 08:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This file currently violates WP:LINKVIO as the source seems to be a blog containing random pictures from elsewhere. Once the source has been removed per WP:LINKVIO, the file will violate WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (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.

A Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana

Moved to FFD - please see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_March_26#File:A_Melhor_Banda_de_Todos_os_Tempos_da_.C3.9Altima_Semana_Cover.jpg if you wish to opine. --B (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (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 does not seem to be any need for two covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 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.

So High (Ghost Loft song)

There is only one cover there now. --B (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2015 (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 don't seem to need two covers here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Second cover unnecessary for sure. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 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.

Customs United F.C.

Removed per WP:NFG and tagged with {{subst:orfud}}

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 too many logos here. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 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.

M-Net

removed all three, tagged File:Mnethdident.png and File:Mnetmovies.png with {{subst:orfud}} since they are now orphaned

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 logos of the sub-entities should not be in this article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed, the two sub-entity logos are unneeded as they appear to have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 5 October 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:Logo for ContentBridge LLC not transparent.png

Retagged as PD-textlogo --B (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the TOO, meets PD-text. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 5 October 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:Fix Your Face Album Cover.jpg

Closed - retagged as "PD-text" and "move to Commons" (online publication by US-artists) --GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-text}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, would be PD-text at least in US. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 5 October 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:Field Studies Council.jpg

Close - retagged as PD-logo (US only, no move). --GermanJoe (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2015 (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 on pages without satisfying WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c. Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD-text in the US only but not worldwide. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 October 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:5 denari.jpg

Removed from Eurasian lynx, nominated for deletion for other reasons. --B (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Eurasian lynx. Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard failure here: we don't use non-free to illustrate how a thing was commemorated. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 3 October 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.

Photo uploads by anonymous user

1. Wrong forum. 2. The Commons uploader has authenticated via an OTRS ticket that she is the author of these images. --B (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2015 (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.

For more than a year, the IP user 107.18.186.46 has been uploading images and adding them to articles. From what I've seen, authorship is consistently attributed to 'Nancy Wong', linked to the non-existent user account 'Edmunddantes'. Here's a recent example out of many. I'm not sure how an anonymous user can assert their copyright. The user also displays an irritating pattern of adding their photos using the 'infobox person' template, and a contribution on their talk page highlighting the issue points to an earlier IP address of the same user that may have been banned. ARK (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An IP can't upload images, although already uploaded images can be added to pages by IPs. The account Edmunddantes exists both here and on Commons (where the images seem to have been uploaded), but is not attached to SUL, so the English Wikipedia account might not belong to the same person as the Commons account. The fact that the account isn't attached to SUL could explain why the images are being added by an IP: lack of SUL doesn't provide the user with any automatic login function on Wikipedia. This is more of a problem to solve on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 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:Jain University Logo.png

Uploaded new version at File:Jain University logo.png - Mediawiki was misbehaving and refusing to regenerate the thumbnail. Old one deleted, new one tagged as text logo. --B (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2015 (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.

Is this copyrightable? It is used outside the article namespace, but is claimed to be non-free. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free in general even in US (the chrome effect pushing it over). Shouldn't be used in userspace. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: @Stefan2: http://www.jainuniversity.ac.in/ has a new completely black logo, so this is moot - we should just use the newest logo, which is conveniently PD-ineligible. However, to answer the question, the US Copyright Office lists as not copyrightable "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" [6]. At Commons, there are several DRs where they accepted as PD logos containing a gradient. This is an interesting case to read: [7][8]. In it, a newspaper named Ajit_(newspaper) (website) has a red text-only logo where their letters are slightly fatter than normal Punjabi lettering. India registered their copyright and so it was copyrightable there. (The US court said it was disputable whether the logo itself was copyrightable in the US, inasumuch as they would not rule on summary judgment, but it seems the case never went forward from there - presumably there was a settlement). So my takeaway from that is yes, the gradient logo is probably copyrightable in India. --B (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2015 (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:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg

Source says it is PD, image is now on Commons. Local copy deleted. --B (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2015 (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.

Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be Anonymous-EU. If you go to to commons Auschwitz Album alot of these images use Anonymous-EU (for example here) including some from the same source supplying image from the Auschwitz Album. The Author has never claimed authorship, it was taken in Poland, and it was taken in May/June 1944 i.e. (over 70 years ago). I don't see why it doesn't apply here, but I'm not very familiar with this tag, so I don't want to change it out of hand.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right, but it would be good to have more eyes on this to confirm. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not hosted in Europe but in the United States. In the United States, the criterion is instead that the picture must have been published more than 95 years ago, which isn't the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Stefan, I see you've added the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag. How do you know that's correct? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Published less than 95 years ago, not in the public domain in the source country (Germany) on 1 January 1996, almost certainly published without a copyright notice somewhere. If not {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, it's {{Not-PD-US-Subsist}}, which for all practical purposes means the same thing for us. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The source country is Poland. What I'm wondering is how you know that it wasn't PD in Poland on 1 January 1996. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Auschwitz-Birkenau was located in Germany in 1944. The source country is the country of first publication, which would seem to be Nazi Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Auschwitz was located in Poland. Do you have a source for the definition of "source country" being the country of first publication?
We don't know where this photograph was first published. The collection was first published in 1980 (and I don't know which countries it first appeared in; the US and Canada were two, but there may have been others, including Poland). But individual images had already appeared, including during the Frankfurt Trial. We would have to do more research to find out whether this was one of them. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- See s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A where it says what the source country is:

“

(C) in the case of a published work—

(i) the eligible country in which the work is first published, or

(ii) if the restored work is published on the same day in 2 or more eligible countries, the eligible country which has the most significant contacts with the work.

”

This picture has obviously been published, so the rules above are the ones which apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've lost track of what's being argued here. If you want to define "source country" as place of first publication, then we don't know what the source country is. (Pinging Coretheapple. Core, not expecting you to comment, but thought you might be interested in the type of discussion that regularly happens around Holocaust images.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Yad Vashem itself says that the images in the Auschwitz Album are public domain.[9] As someone who published it, I think they would have a vested interest in knowing one way or the other. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum says that this image (and, from looking around, everything else from this album) is public domain [10] (scroll down - there is a different picture at the top of the page and then this one is shown under the picture, with a claim that it is PD). I looked around at a handful of pictures on there and it looks like things that came from the "Auschwitz Album", they say are public domain, e.g. [11], while plenty of other things (including other things from Yad Vashem), they say are copyrighted. The Google Cultural Institute says it's public domain [12]. Really, Wikipedia is the only place that seems to doubt it's public domain. I am not a lawyer and I don't pretend to know under what legal theory it is public domain. I know that the US seized certain Nazi copyrights under the Trading with the Enemy Act. I have no idea if that's relevant. All I know is that people who are smart enough to know all say it's public domain. When the Library of Congress says "no known restrictions", we generally take that at face value, even if it was published after 1923. So I think we should do the same thing here - the publisher of the book and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum say it's public domain, so that's good enough for me. --B (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. If Wikipedia can declare that it regards a monkey image as PD, it can similarly decide to treat Holocaust images taken by Nazi-Germany as PD. We should do the same for images taken by the underground where there is no claim of copyright by the photographer (and I have never seen one), rather than endlessly arguing over individual images. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that the country of first publication for images from Nazi Germany usually is Nazi Germany. In order for sucn an image to be in the public domain in the United States, the photographer must already have been dead for 70 years as of 1 January 1996, which is impossible. Some pictures were seized by the United States and those pictures are claimed to be in the public domain in the United States. Other pictures should be assumed to be copyrighted in the United States with copyright expiration 95 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  - I don't know that Nazi Germany was the country of first publication. In fact I would say almost certainly that Nazi Germany was NOT the country of first publication. 1. Some Nazi photographer took the photos with his camera. 2. The camp was liberated. 3. One of the survivors took took the photos home. 4. In 1980, that survivor donated them to Yad Vashem. 5. Yad Vashem published the photos in 1994. Yad Vashem is incorporated in Israel, so presumably Israel is the country of first publication. Yad Vashem - the original publisher - claims that the photos are public domain, as does everyone else everywhere who is in a position to know. --B (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded it to Commons, along with the darker version from Yad Vashem's website, given that the other Auschwitz Album images are already there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (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.

[1] ttp://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/97940134830/

[2] ttps://twitter.com/TFYCapitalists/status/513136510351474688

[1]

[2]