Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 61

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 55 ← Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 → Archive 65

File:Seoul Flag.png

File has been deleted. --GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 28 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? If so, it should be removed from the user namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD in the US, so technically okay in userspace. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 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: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)

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.[1] 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 [2] (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. [3], while plenty of other things (including other things from Yad Vashem), they say are copyrighted. The Google Cultural Institute says it's public domain [4]. 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)
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.


Stefan has nominated this for deletion on Commons. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tungsten W.jpg

Single file, single use should go FFD which I have already nominated there. Reasoning for deletion is as below (eg fails NFCC#1).

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 can't see any reason the Tungsten article needs a non-free W. Stated purpose has already been met with other images. Eeekster (talk) 00:56, 31 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:Chevypnglogo.png

Removed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:16, 3 May 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.

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Chevrolet. Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only valid for the main article. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 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.


Raanjhanaa (soundtrack)

deleted via Ffd. --Peripitus (Talk) 08:45, 18 April 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 page probably doesn't need two covers. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Second cover (for single) is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 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.


Bad Reputation (Joan Jett song)

image orphaned and deleted. --Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 18 April 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 article seems to contain unreasonably many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Second cover is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 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.


Babymetal (album)

Two are fine per Masem. No action required. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:54, 4 April 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 article seems to contain too many covers. Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Main and one alternate covers seems to be in line with allowances for album articles. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 25 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:Big Girls Don't Cry (book).jpg

there is a more recent version (first edition), which is more than just shapes. This the original question does not apply. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:43, 3 April 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's just a book cover featuring text and PD-shapes. For an image that simple I'd generally list it to be moved to Commons, but the reason I'm listing it is because it includes a copyrighted quote by Maureen Corrigan. Is this quote enough to not label the cover as {{pd-text}} or it is suitable for Commons. Note: I don't know if I'm in the correct venue. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know - you might have better luck asking at Commons. I would believe here, because they are using a quote in fair use (there's probably sevaral paragraphs about the book that they pulled that quote from) we could justify it as a PD-text here, but I'm not sure on commons. --MASEM (t) 08:18, 8 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:Florence Green.jpg

Looks like this can be closed now. File is removed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:38, 3 April 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 file is used without a fair use rationale at List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. As the last surviving WWI veteran, is it appropriate to use this fair use image in the list article, keeping in mind that she has her own article, located at Florence Green, where it naturally is appropriate to use this image. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this fails WP:NFLISTS as used in this list. ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 10 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:Enoden-logo.JPG

No longer on multiple pages, no more action needed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:40, 3 April 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? This is claimed to be non-free and is used on more than a hundred pages but only has a fair use rationale for one page. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is definitely not so in United States. I used Google Translate to transcribe "Enoden" and it came out 江ノ電, which is exactly what the logo shows. Of course, if you want to be 100% sure, you could ask a Japanese-speaking Wikipedian to verify this. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 16 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.


User:Misa443/sandbox

Issue has been resolved, non-free files removed from page. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:22, 8 April 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#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  Removed and warned Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The page still contains several non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops. I've removed those as well. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? You guys love to WP:BITE, don't you? -Myopia123 (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor Myopia123: Was my warning really that WP:BITE-y? I try not do do that. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:17, 6 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:City of westminster logo.svg

More than 30 days passed on this thread. --Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 19:46, 3 May 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 file violates WP:NFCC#9, and I can't figure out how to remove the image from the violating page. Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is being called into the infobox template on that user's page via the {{Infobox London Borough}}, which I think is a no-no - templates should not instantiate non-free images themselves - allot space for their inclusion on a specific page, yes, but not automatically provide them. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 22 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.


List of Solar System objects by size

The page no longer contains non-free files. Maybe quarry:query/2939 can be used for finding other similar problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 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 files violate WP:NFCC#8 and sometimes also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • One of the outcomes of the declining participation in Wikipedia is that articles with significant amounts of inappropriate content under WP:NFCC are not being patrolled for such violations. This is one of them. The use here is obviously inappropriate, and should just be removed without having to bring such violations here (not that I fault you Stefan2). Such uses are becoming the norm because of Wikipedia's intransigence in developing less random user dependent means to maintain the project against such violations. This particular article has been the scene of multiple removals of non-free content ([5][6][7][8][9][10]), yet here we are discussing whether the images should be there. But, no matter. Afterall, it's ok to add non-free images here when "the picture is cool!!!1". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, I have always enjoyed your use of irony. If you don't use link classifier, it's really helpful for this sort of thing, by bordering fair use images in red, it makes them easier to pick out when they are used incorrectly. And yes, many times these things should just be removed, without the discussion here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • See this please. I think I took care of most of these, in one case there is even a free image (although poor quality) available... --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know what link classifier is? Anyway, thanks for removing them. But, they will be restored. They have been for many years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 3 April 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:Madison.jpeg

Tagged for CSD as freely replaceable. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 8 April 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 subject of the photo is still alive and there could be a free image available or made. Additionally, this image is watermarked. I don't see how we can keep this image or use it in the infobox of the subject's article. Dismas|(talk) 04:24, 8 April 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:Elsie Estrada.JPEG

Image deleted under WP:CSD#F7 as replaceable fair use --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 15 April 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.

Non-free image of living person Wcam (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Removed from the one article it was in, tagged as {{rfu}} and {{orfud}}. Uploader notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 9 April 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:Guesswomandelicate.jpg

File has been deleted after additional FfD nomination. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 4 May 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 non-free advertisement is being used on a page about a specific book titled "Gender Advertisements", which is about the book, not about the advertisements themselves. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, neither Gender Advertisements not Gender advertisement discuss this ad specifically, and if it is designed to be representative it could replaced with a free equivalent. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:13, 9 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:Jonathan-rhys-meyers-energie.jpg

File has been deleted after additional FfD nomination. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 4 May 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 specific image is not discussed in Gender advertisement and could be replaced by a free image Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:05, 9 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:Mencontrol7.jpg

File has been deleted after additional FfD nomination. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 4 May 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 image is not specifically discussed in either Gender Advertisements or Gender advertisement. Since it is designed to be representative, it could be replaced with an equivalent free image (either created under a free license or old enough to be in the public domain). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:15, 9 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:Computer generated clear quartz.png

File deleted (CSD F5). --GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 4 May 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.

Non free, no credible rationale for such use.

Photographs of real quartz are available. We don't need a non-free generated artwork of it.

If this is significant as a piece of CGI artwork specifically (that's possible, especially as it's quite early raytracing work) then that would have to be claimed separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 1 April 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:The instruments of acupressure.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 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 picture of objects does not appear to meet the requirement, "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Any person in this profession (or with a friend in this profession) could take a picture of these tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep, needs to go. I've tagged it with {{rfu}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 27 April 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:Plan au sol de la brasserie de Jean Talon en 1686.png

File tagged as PD and reviewed. In queue for Commons move. --GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 5 May 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.

If this is from 1686, it wouldn't be copyright, it would be public domain, would it not? kelapstick(bainuu) 12:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely can be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I have updated the licencing, and will tag. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:07, 17 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:Balangoda Ananda Maiterya Thero.jpg

File deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 4 May 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 file is only used in the Notable alumni section of Ananda College which I don't believe qualifies for WP:NFCC. obi2canibetalk contr 13:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Both uses of this file (in Ananda College#Notable alumni and Buddhism in Sri Lanka) violate WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. If @SWR2.9: continues add the image to the articles I will take it to WP:ANI.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero, who was a leading personality of Theravada Buddhism in the twentieth century, wrote many books on Buddhism, meditation and languages. Some of his books are considered as text books for students. This rare photograph which was taken while he was involved in literary work increases the value of the section Survey of writings in the article. Since Balangoda Ananda Maitreya thero died in 1998, using this file in English Wikipedia under fair-use is acceptable in my view. -- SWR2.9 (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We do allow a non-free image of a deceased, notable person to illustrate their article and no question a non-free is fine here, but there are two images now on Thero's page, where only one is needed. One of these should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have seen the presence of two non-free images elsewhere in English Wikipedia, used in the same article to illustrate different sections. Anyway if it is a 'must' to keep only one non-free image in a page, this file should not be deleted because it has a rare historic value in it. This file is also the older file which was in the main page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero for sometime, before it was replaced by a different non- free photograph by another wikipedian. --SWR2.9 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are articles where more than one non-free image is being used, but that does not necessarily mean that doing so in this particular case is correct. Also, Wikipedia is not really a place for storing non-free images per WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Editors who feel the file has rare historic value can download it to their own computers for safe keeping or find somewhere more suitable to store the file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: All the rules, policies and guidelines in Wikipedia are universal, aren't they? If some rule is applicable to a one page those policies are also applicable to the page of venerable Thero too, because Wikipedia doesn't have a different set of guidelines and policies for the people of different religions and areas of the world. WP:NFCC#7 is not violated by this file because it is used in at least one article and WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable here since the Thero is a notable person and this file is used to illustrate his literary works. Editors surely can keep files which don't have any encyclopedic value in their personal storage by download it to their own computers for safe keeping, but if any file has an encyclopedic value in it, Wikipedia is the place to use it especially if you are a wikipedian. --SWR2.9 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you find articles where multiple non-free images are being incorrectly used per Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy, then you can (1) discuss them here, (2) discuss them on the article's talk page, or (3) be bold and remove the image yourself per WP:NFCCE. The fact that multiple non-free images are be being used in other articles does not automatically mean that this image can also be used in multiple articles. Wikipedia can be edited by pretty much anyone. Images are uploaded and added to articles all the time and sometimes good-faith mistakes are made. When those mistakes are discovered, they are usually corrected whenever possible. Knowingly repeating the mistakes of others, however, is not really helpful to building an encyclopedia because it just creates more problems that need to be cleaned up later. This discussion is not about Thero's notability; It is about whether the image in question satisfies the all 10 criteria for non-free image use. WP:NFCC#7 says that all non-free images need to be used in at least one Wikipedia article. Images which do not satisfy this requirement are generally considered to be "orphans" and are tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 due to copyright concerns. There may be certain exceptions to this, but I don't think they apply in this case (I could be wrong). Wikipedia is not an media repository like Wikipedia Commons so images that are not being used in articles are either moved to Commons when it is acceptable to do so or deleted when it is not. Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia each have their own rules and Commons only accepts free media, so moving is not an option for this file. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I have said earlier, using this file in the page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero does not violate the criteria of fair-use of non free files in English Wikipedia as it add value to the page. This file is also not an orphan because it was and still in use in wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, I am not interested in counting the number of non-free files used in a single wikipedia page and taking action to remove them, as you have suggested to me because;
1. There is no specific strict rule in wikipedia to limit the number of fair use images to a maximum of one in a single page. (the number of fair-use images in some pages counts more than 2)
2. My aim in Wikipedia is to cover the areas of Sri Lankan and Theravada Buddhism which are not covered well enough at the moment, rather than deleting fair-use images which add value to any article of any field. (Interests of different wikipedians are not the same)
There is no point in repeating the same opinions again and again. In my view, using this file in the page of Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero, does not violate the fair-use policy of English wikipedia for sure. Thank you. -- SWR2.9 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
NFC is not a policy you can willfully ignore, our goal on WP is to promote free content and minimize reliance on non-free content. NFCC#3a requires the minimum amount of NFC be used to still understand a topic, so having two images of the same person looking otherwise the same is inappropriate because only one is needed to see who this person was. What others pages do has no bearing here. You can use this image on that page, but only if you remove File:Agga Maha Pandita Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thera.jpg from that article. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As it is the case with most pages use more than one non-free image in en wikipedia, NFCC#3a is not violated by this image too, because it is used to illustrate Thero's literary contributions, rather than identifying him in this page. --SWR2.9 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it illustrating this? It is the same person, possibly older than the photo, otherwise doing nothing out of the ordinary. The reader's understanding of who Thera is not diminished by the removal of one of the two images (If both were removed, yes, we would harm that, hence why one is okay). And we don't care that other pages use two or more images; each use of non-free is evaluated separate and in conjunction of what page it is used on, ignoring all else. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. I don't think image is acceptable to use in either Ananda College#Notable alumni or the infobox of Buddhism in Sri Lanka per WP:NFCC#8 as well as perhaps WP:NFG and No. 1 of WP:NFLISTS. I can understand the reasons for wanting to use it in Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thero#Survey of writings, but the problem, in that case, seems to be with WP:NFCC#3a. Are File:Agga Maha Pandita Balangoda Ananda Maitreya Thera.jpg and File:Balangoda_Ananda_Maiterya_Thero.jpg pictures of the same person? They look like the same person, but the file names are slightly different. If they are the same person, then they essentially provide the same information and both are not needed in my opinion. One of them can be used per No. 10 of WP:NFCI, but not both. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the views expressed here I have nominated this file for deletion.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:42, 19 April 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:Rosalind Franklin.jpg

Thanks Marchjuly --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 4 May 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.

Non-free image of Franklin is being used in University of Cambridge#Notable alumni and academics. File does not have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. An appropriate nfur for the Cambridge article can be added, but I'm not quite sure if the file satisfies WP:NFCC#8 as well as possibly No. 4 of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFG. I'm interested in hearing what others think. For reference, a question about the non-free use of the file was asked at Talk:University of Cambridge#Rosalind Franklin. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It is just being used for decoration in University of Cambridge. The article mentions her, but the image is not referenced nor needed to understand they are referring to Rosalind Franklin. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hammersoft. I thought that was probably the case, but just wanted to know if other editors felt the same way. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to update. I have removed the image from University of Cambridge and British Jews explaining my reasons why at Talk:University of Cambridge#Rosalind Franklin and Talk:British Jews#Rosalind Franklin respectively. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 4 May 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:Metra Logo.svg

Licensing updated to pd-text/trademark. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 4 May 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 underlying image looks like a PD-logo, but I think we may have to create our own SVG rendering. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It is, and I've changed the licensing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 3 May 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.


Royal Farms Arena

Main logo is fine. Others fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:18, 8 May 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 seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Baltimore_Arena_Logo.png is not needed, but the other logo is PD in the US (textlogo) so is okay. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 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.


Portrait of Param Vir Chakra Awardee

Long story short, the U.S. and India have different specific takes on copyright (although similar). Regardless, as the hosting servers are in the United States, we must adhere to U.S. law. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:23, 8 May 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.

Could I trouble someone for a comment regarding this matter here? Talk:Yogendra Singh Yadav. Please be mindful that this man is considered a hero in Indian Society and I feel that such pedantic interpretations of policy, with no thought to being practicality, is disrespecting the man and his service.Myopia123 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't make exceptions for living persons that are clearly around in the public; a free image is definitely possible so we cannot use a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least you were courteous enough to begin with 'Sorry'.Myopia123 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the Right to Information Act [11] of India, information is defined as

    "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
    "record" includes(a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not);

The relevant parts of the act, which apply to this image:

3. Right to information.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.4. Obligations of public authorities.......(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (/), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

As an Indian Citizen, it is the government's duty to make this image available to me, which is what they have done on the website that it was obtained from (Indian Army, which is part of Ministry of Defence, which is a public authority). As an Indian citizen, I have the right to upload it to Wikipedia.
All of this legal jargon aside: India is not the US. You are treating this like a lawsuit waiting to happen when the reality is that every party involved will be happy that we are using images of a national hero for an encyclopediaMyopia123 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
From the Foundation, our goal is to provide free content, which includes the ability for it to be built and modified by any other user for any other purpose, as long as attribution is given. India's Information Act does not grant that right, so images from them will be treated as non-free. As the Foundation also seeks to promote free media over non-free media, if a free image is possible (not existing already) we cannot use a non-free; this is the case for nearly every living person, and definitely in particular for someone who is claimed to be a nation's war hero - it might require finding someone in India to go to an event that this person is attending to get a picture, but it's possible for sure. So a non-free cannot be used. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The act does not expressly grant that right because it is not prohibited at all. It is a form of freedom of expression. Here is a link to the same image modified by a newspaper [12]. The act was not made with Wikipedia and internet copyright in mind but the implications are the same.Myopia123 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because a newspaper modified doesn't mean that right is a sure thing; that can fall under fair use. But we need explicit language that all users have the right to modify the image, and that's just not present in India's law - free access, yes, but not free reuse. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of such explicit language in another country's laws so that I know you are 100% correct in what you are saying?Myopia123 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
US's law, which puts all works into the public domain, is spelled out as "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government" Section 105. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The spirit of the Indian act was for the same purpose. The link which you have provided does not use that language either, it has been interpreted to suit this purpose. Anyway, I think I've had enough of Wikipedia editors for one lifetime. Tc. Myopia123 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the Indian law does not divest the work of any copyright, only that citizens should have free access. The US law is clear that works of the gov't cannot be copyrighted, thus in the public domain and can be built on by anyone. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you're the big man who gets to say what is right and wrong over here but in my opinion, you are absolutely mistaken in this case. Copyright law is not as stringent in India as it is in the US, since we are not a litigious society. Just like Indian pharmaceutical companies can freely make dirt cheap, generic versions of copyrighted western drugs, the same is the case for these images. I do not think any Indian official would dispute that once I have free access, modifying and doing whatever I want with images is a part of freedom of expression. However, you are entitled to your opinion, which I understand has more weight than mine over here. Myopia123 (talk) 22:20, 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.


In Our Time (short story collection)

The images both qualify for {{PD-US-not renewed}} if the copyright was not renewed. @George Ho: be sure to check for publisher copyright and then fix accordingly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:26, 8 May 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.

Two non-free book covers are used. Shall we use one or two? George Ho (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Understanding that there are two different editions with different content, only one should be used, as the cover is otherwise not the subject of discussion. A couple things to keep in mind is that there might be a chance these are free (at the cusp, being 1923, so there might not be (c) markings or re-registration). Also the 1925 cover may be "free" as uncopyrightable as the only non-text elements are those little symbols on the top quarants and those might be under the line. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The 1925 edition was used for copyright. However, I searched for the renewal registration of the collection in 1953, 1952, and 1951 copyright catalogs. I found none. Even I didn't find other works by Hemingway there. Consider both editions free to use? --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 7 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:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg

It seems like the questions have been resolved and there has been no new discussion in some time. Procedural close. TLSuda (talk) 15:29, 8 May 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 image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia using the licensing rationale "public domain". This rationale was discussed here at WP:PUI and the result of the discussion was that "the best practice is to have the file as non-free until such a time the copyright status can be proven one way or another". The file was then tagged with {{non-free logo}} and {{non-free use rationale}}, but I am not sure if the image satisfies all ten of the non-free content criteria, in particular "8. Contextual significance". There is no mention/description/explanation of the image (or its significance) at all in the article which leads me to wonder just how its presence "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" or how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Finally, when the image was initially uploaded as "public domain" with this edit , no information was added about its source. This information was provided here later on, but not by the file's uploader. I'm not sure whether this is even relevant at all, but since the source was not provided by the uploader, it seems like it is hard to know for sure whether the source listed is the actual source of the file. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The logo of a notable organization, as to be used in the infobox for that organization's article, is generally accepted as an allowed use for non-free images. (The idea being that as a means to id the organization, being in context with sourced discussion about the organization means that it is being used within context). --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Masem. You qualified your above post by saying "generally accepted" which seems to imply that there are cases where the use of such logos is not acceptable. How is this determination made? Is it made strictly by local consensus on a case by case basis or are there some community-wide criteria in place? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, we should have a source for this image , whether a website or an official document, to prove previous publication. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the uploader the only person who can provide the original source or can it be added by another editor? Should the file be deleted for failing to satisfy NFCC "10. Image description page" if the original source is not provided, either because it does not exist or the uploader choses not provide it? On the other hand, if the "non-free logo" rationale is sound and the image is just being deleted because of NFCC 10a., then it could just be re-uploaded as a "non-free logo" and sourced using the information found by other editors involved in the PUF discussion, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If anyone else can provide a likely source for the image, that can be added (and there appears to be a source listed in the PUF discussion). so that can just be added to the page w/o deleting the image. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
OK Masem, so there's no problem with who adds the source. That means we're back again to the "contextual significance" of the image to the article. How is this established? How is this determined if there is no clear consensus? Does WP:STATUSQUO apply in such cases just like any other edit? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is some reason that WP:NFCI#2 and WP:LOGOS does not apply here (which I really can't see - it's the official logo of a notable organization, used as identification of that organziation), it's unlikely to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine Masem. but then shouldn't something be mentioned in the article regarding the significance of the logo. Perhaps something regarding it's meaning or origin? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We'd love that to make the image more useful, but it is long-standing practice that as long as the entity with the logo is notable with a stand-alone article, one single identifying image (even if never discussed) is appropriate, similar to our use of cover art. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand about album cover art, but couldn't the reasoning given in WP:BANDLOGO be also extended to cover something like this as well. I am not a deletist by any means and I hear what you're saying, so so I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just "writing for the opponent" so to speak just to make sure I understand the rationale behind this. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
That's how it applies. The better way to see this is that we include logo use in this fashion at WP:NFCI (the list of generally allowed non-free uses). --MASEM (t) 02:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I found File:Iceland road sign E01.21.svg at Commons uploaded as public domain. It looks very similar to the logo we've been discussing. The only real difference I can see is the shield in the center of the logo. Would this be considered a "free equivalent" per WP:NFCC? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I would not think so because of the difference on the shield. I'd stay with what we've had before. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for taking a look. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 3 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.


Pelita Bandung Raya

Consensus is old logos fail WP:NFCC.. TLSuda (talk) 15:30, 8 May 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 are too many logos in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Old crests are unnecessary without any discussion about them. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 7 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:Det ar dit vi ska cd cover.jpg

Concerns have been addressed. TLSuda (talk) 15:31, 8 May 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 have doubts over the tagging used on the above named file which may not be in accordance with WP:NFCI. Looking at the file history, the contributor has changed tags multiple times as if they too were uncertain. And the editor has had five warnings in the past for uploading images that were in violation of copyrights, most of which were speedy deleted under WP:F9. If the image is an issue, then perhaps some tutorial for the editor is required to prevent this issue from reoccurring in the future. Wes Mouse 13:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they were trying to get the right template name (the other changes being not proper templates). And as such, one needs to assume good faith that the editor wasn't purposely trying to break NFCC/copyright (their past attempts look like unfamiliarity with the process less than purposely bad cases). This image would normally be allowed as a album cover, however there is a problem that it is lacking a rationale, which can be added/fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am assuming good faith here - hence why I said I had doubt, and even noticed that it appeared the editor was also uncertain. I'm not fully comfortable with image related content, and always treat such with extreme caution and seek advice were necessary. I do feel, however, that the editor in question may benefit from some tutorial in image related uploads, so that she is aware of the scale of things and what can and cannot be uploaded - including which tags to use and when. Such help would be passing on valuable knowledge to inexperienced editor's and help them grow into outstanding contributors - or as I like to say using a terminology learnt during my volunteering at London 2012 - "Inspiring the next generation". Wes Mouse 15:03, 8 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:DaveAndBusters.svg

Consensus is image is PD-logo. TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 8 May 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.

Looks like a {{PD-logo}} to me. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, United States Copyright Office would likely refuse to register this, so I agree it should be retagged as PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:27, 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.


DXMX

Consensus is older logos fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:34, 8 May 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 article contains too many non-free logos. Also, the single word "Facebook" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Only the "Power" logo is a problem as excess non-free. the "Mix" one would likely be under the TOO (glow effect being a simple filter like a drop shadow), compared to the beveled look of the Power logo. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 30 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.


Australia Plus

Consensus is non-free previous logos fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:36, 8 May 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 "logo history" section contains a gallery of non-free images, which looks inappropriate. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Both additional logos are non-free, and are not needed without additional commentary about the logo design/critique. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 30 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:Epcot Spaceship Earth Logo.svg

Consensus is the image is below the Threshold of Originality and is therefore PD-logo. TLSuda (talk) 15:38, 8 May 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.

Currently marked as non-free; does this logo fail to meet TOO (in which case it should be marked as {{PD-logo}}? RJaguar3 | u | t 17:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For US , it does seem to be just under TOO, but it's an edge case. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 30 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:World vision logo.jpg

No consensus in over 6 months. Procedural close. TLSuda (talk) 15:42, 8 May 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 {{PD-textlogo}}? If not, it should only be used in the article namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Note: I have removed it from the sandbox draft at User:Emmanuel International Canada/Emmanuel International Canada. Feel free to restore it if the image is determined to be free. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:18, 26 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:USCandSNA.jpg

Consensus is image is PD-Somalia. TLSuda (talk) 15:43, 8 May 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 non-free, but seems to be {{PD-Somalia}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely would fall under that PD-Somalia tag, though Wales has stated that we should still respect copyrights from nations that aren't part of the US's URAA reciprocal copyright laws. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Which copyright? According to {{PD-Somalia}}, there is no copyright law in Somalia, so this is in the public domain worldwide. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 30 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:Revell Logo.png

Image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} + {{Trademark}}. TLSuda (talk) 15:45, 8 May 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.

Would this logo be a case of {{PD-logo}} (or possibly {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if the logo is not of US origin?) --Elegie (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's PD-logo in the US only. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
On those grounds, would it be correct to change the licensing to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} + {{Trademark}} ? --Elegie (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 20 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.


Innerst i sjelen (album)

Images that fail WP:NFCC were previously removed. TLSuda (talk) 15:47, 8 May 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.

See WP:NFCC#3a: this page contains too many album covers. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The English-language version of the original cover is unnecessary since it is a near duplicate outside of text. The Japan release cover is reasonable as a different cover release in a major region, per alt. album cover artwork allowances. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 30 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:VEF Minox logo.jpg

Consensus holds that image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 15:48, 8 May 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 likely {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Free, US-only. Would fail that elsewhere in world (that is, non-free). --MASEM (t) 14:08, 30 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:SelmaHeschelMarch.jpg

Image has been removed from articles where it failed WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:50, 8 May 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 violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least one article[which?] and also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Userspace violation has been removed. Of the other 4, the one in Alabama is inappropriate, but the other three uses are reasonable (on the page directly about the event, on the page of a person noted for the event as their only photo id, and on a page about the inter-racial relationships that the event reflected.) --MASEM (t) 14:12, 30 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:SEAwritelogo.png

Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#9 and has been removed from those articles. TLSuda (talk) 15:52, 8 May 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 Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Userspace violation removed. Agree that the Association use is inappropriate with the separate article for the award. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 30 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.


Persib Bandung

Consensus is to remove extraneous logos per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 15:53, 8 May 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 article contains too many logos, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The logo gallery section is unnecessary - it duplicates the infobox logo, and the older logo is not discussed, nor that different from the current one to require a separate image. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 30 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:CCLILogo.png

Consensus is the image is below TOO. and is therefore PD-logo. TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 8 May 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's a close call, but I don't think the combination of standard elements in the CCLI logo meets TOO. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's just under TOO in the US, so should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 30 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:Llorona.jpg

Consensus is the image does not meet WP:NFCC and is replaceable by free images. TLSuda (talk) 15:57, 8 May 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 image is used in three articles. Does usage meet criteria policy? George Ho (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Most likely yes in all three. We're talking about a mythos/cultural story/figure so I would believe that there should be free artwork that would demonstrate the concept better than a random actress with no special apparances or the like to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagree on this. A screenshot of a film can not be used to illustrate a ghost. The image is replacable. Free artwork can be created to replace the image. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 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:Yellow by Beximco.png

Has been retagged as PD-textlogo. In queue for Commons. --GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 8 May 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 unfree but does not look copyrightable, at least not in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Will retag. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:59, 30 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_61&oldid=1142590772"