Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 64

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 60 ← Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 → Archive 70

File:WWE Headquarters 2015.jpg

Solved by tagging the picture with {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 16 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.

We cannot accept fair-use for this photo. It's possible to create a free photography. XXN, 20:11, 16 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.

List of Jonas Brothers concert tours

Non-free pictures should not be used in the list, but rather on individual articles about the subject (in this case the tours). If there is not notability enough for a stand alone article, then the photo is not necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 18 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 would seem that the non-free pictures only should be in the articles about the individual tours (where such articles exist) but not in this list article. Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The ones that have images in this appear to not have articles, but my first impression on reading is that they could have individual articles from a notability standpoint. It would make more sense to create the indiviudal articles for these to have the images there. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 12 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.


Lint voor Verwonding

Images are both in the Public Domain. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:46, 18 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 article does not seem to need two pictures of certificates. One or zero should be fine. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

These may possibly be free - if not from age from being primarily text elements. I'm not 100% sure though. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Why? Text is copyrighted too. {{Db-g12}} is routinely placed on pages which contain unfree text. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, true, forgot about that. But still, age might come into play at least the one with a 1922 stamp (the 1923 is questionable). --MASEM (t) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I overlooked the year. According to c:COM:CRT#South Africa, government works are protected for 50 years from publication, so both should be fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Might be good to get a check to see if they can go on commons, then. (And for clarity if it is the case both are non-free, yes, we only need one; if one is free and the other not, only the free one should be used). --MASEM (t) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Both certificates are out of copyright in South Africa ({{PD-South-Africa}}) and the US ({{PD-URAA}}), so we should move them to Commons. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 12 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.


File:Myki logo 2014.jpeg

Image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:47, 18 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 below the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US? (According to Commons, Australia has a very low TOO, so the logo may likely be copyrighted in Australia. At the same time, from what one understands, the US has a much higher TOO.) --Elegie (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it is used on Myki as fair use to identify an organisation, with what I believe to be a valid fair use rationale statement, and meets WP:LOGO. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The usage of the Myki logo in the Myki article seems legitimate regardless of whether the logo is copyrightable in the US or not. At the same time, the logo seems to be of simple design (text, though in a somewhat unusual font, over a solid rectangle) and if the logo is in fact ineligible for copyright in the US (even if it is copyrighted in Australia) then it would seem useful to document that aspect of the logo. --Elegie (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
More specifically, would this logo be a case of {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? --Elegie (talk) 18:11, 22 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.


File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC on all articles except 22 Gia Long Street and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:03, 18 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.

User:Hammersoft has deleted Hu Van Es's iconic photo from the end of the Vietnam War from both the Vietnam War and Operation Frequent Wind pages. My understanding is that this image satisfies the non-free content policy and is properly attributed and so should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • With respect, no it doesn't satisfy the policy. I grant the image is iconic. There's no question of that, so much so that there is an article about the image. However, the Wikimedia Foundation stipulated in their Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007 that use of non-free materials must be kept to a minimum. As further explained at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6, the use of a non-free image should not be done if an article about that image exists. Instead, a description of the image and a link to its article should be made. In this case, we have an article about the image located at 22 Gia Long Street, which is an otherwise nondescript building that would have no fame but for the event for which it was photographed. This image showed up on my watchlist today when User:DragonflyDC(pinging to this discussion) added a rationale for use on the article for the creator of the image, Hubert van Es. As I noted in the edit summary, as with Steve McCurry (creator of the famous Afghan Girl image), using the image on the creator's article isn't supported when an article exists about that image, per the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6 notation above. I removed this image from Operation Frequent Wind, Vietnam War and Hubert van Es and have considered removing it from Fall of Saigon for the same reason. We have plenty of other images available to depict the Fall of Saigon without delving into non-free images. Granted, none are as iconic. That is not relevant in these cases. Witness the use of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R77767, Berlin, Rotarmisten Unter den Linden.jpg instead of File:Reichstag flag original.jpg as the main infobox image at Battle of Berlin. There was considerable discussion on that decision quite some time ago, with consensus concluding removal of the iconic image in lieu of the free image. This removal of usage follows the same pattern, and again is described at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6; we have an article about the image, so deprecating use elsewhere in favor of linking to the article about the image is the standard to help comply with the Foundation's dictum regarding minimizing the use of non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hammersoft is correct here - the image is fine on the page about the building, and likely on the Fall of Saigon page, but that's pretty much it for minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The 22 Gia Long Street page was created as a fork out of Operation Frequent Wind, presumably in order to get the image featured somewhere on Wikipedia. The whole In Popular Culture section on the Operation Frequent Wind page essentially revolves around the photo because it is the iconic image of the Fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War and has given rise to comparisons and parody ever since, it would be bizarre to have the section without the photo. The photo should feature on Operation Frequent Wind (the underlying event) and Hubert van Es (the creator), while 22 Gia Long Street should be deleted if the photo is removed.Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We have an article about the image at 22 Gia Long Street. It would be inappropriate, under our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline, to have the image hosted on a variety of other pages when there is already an article about the image. If 22 Gia Long Street were deleted, it might be appropriate for the image to be on Operation Frequent Wind (might). It would not be appropriate for it to be on the creator's page regardless. There are many examples of this restricted usage throughout the project. Mention of the image in other articles with a link to the hosting page is the appropriate way to manage this sort of situation. This is how we do it, per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. If you'd like to see item #6 removed from that list, the appropriate place to start a discussion would be WT:NFC. But, given that we are required to keep non-free image usage to a minimum, it is unlikely such a discussion would result in removing that unacceptable use example. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can only describe the policy as ridiculous in the context of iconic images. Where an event gives rise to an iconic image it is so closely associated with that event that it should feature on the event page. A separate page may be warranted where there is a large amount of additional information that becomes a story in itself, such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but does it really help anyone to have a fork to a completely unknown title 22 Gia Long Street that contains no additional information other than the iconic image itself? Anyone wanting to find that photo will probably think "helicopter on a roof in Saigon", which isn't an immediate or logical path to 22 Gia Long St. Similarly for Hu Van Es, it is his most famous photo and it doesn't even feature on a page about him? The same obviously applies for Joe Rosenthal. Where is the policy that says that?Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Because a wikilink to the page with the photo is completely fine for referencing photos without introducing another non-free use on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You've been pointed to the policies from which Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6 descended. We are required to minimize non-free image use, per the Foundation resolution previously linked. If you want to place the 22 Gia Long Street for deletion because it is "unknown", feel free. It might be more appropriate for the article to be named after the photo itself, but I don't know under what name the photo is typically referred to. Some data analysis of searches might be useful in this case. Regardless, the image does feature prominently (in the infobox) of Fall of Saigon, the subject for which it is most likely most iconic. Speculation, but if you ask a hundred people on the street what "Operation Frequent Wind" (OFW) was and you would probably get a lot of blank stares, and no right answers. Show them the picture being discussed here, and you'd probably get a few right answers about the Fall of Saigon, but likely get no right answers about OFW. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm a bit of a student of war history, though more so of WWII than any other war. Still, I've studied the Vietnam War, read the book (not seen the series on which it is based) Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War, and multiple other books having to do with that war. While I was long ago familiar with the helicopter on the roof image, I never heard of 22 Gia Long Street until I came to Wikipedia. I note that in Google search, I got 1007 results for (in quotes) "22 Gia Long Street". I got 43,000 results for (again in quotes) "Helicopter on the roof". I think perhaps the article is misnamed, as the property isn't famous. It's the image that is famous. Compare that Mount Suribachi does not have the flag raising image (though I grant it is independently famous), but we do have the flag raising image on its own article, under a name that most people would recognize as being associated with that image. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 20 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.


CH Sevilla

Consensus is no more than one photo is necessary and therefore fails WP:NFCC.. I have removed all but the top image. If someone wants one of the others exchanged, please let me know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:04, 18 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 article doesn't need the historical photographs, or at least not all of them. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One would be reasonable as the club no longer exists but agreed not 4. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 25 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.


File:NYCRR binder.png

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it would be replaceable by a free image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:08, 18 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:NFC#8. Thoughts? HiDrNick! 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is arguably the identifying cover of a notable book and thus meets NFCI#1. However, and I can't determine this immediately, if the seal image on the cover is PD (it might be, but I can't tell), then just an image of the cover itself (not a photograph of the binder) would be free as a combination of text and PD imagery. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the coat of arms of New York. Int21h (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(Which was made in the 1800s) Then a 2D image of the front of the binder would be a free replacement cover image for the article. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 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.


File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 18 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.

To be honest, this is more a macro question about how WP:NFCC#8 applies to magazine covers. Here, the cover design isn't discussed in context, so with a strict reading of WP:NFCC, it's not essential and doesn't belong.

The question is whether the cover is necessary to illustrate how much of a national media story this game was. My thinking is that you can simply mention that it was an SI cover story and link to articles mentioning the cover. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The cover is appeared to be used to illustrate the point that the game was considered an upset by the media. To that end, unless the image of the cover itself is of significant discussion it is unnecessary to show that point via an image when there are numerous sources that are used to express that point. This fails NFCC#8 clearly. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 6 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:Indian uprising-small.jpg

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 17:12, 18 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.

Same as the previously nominated File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg. While the cover is mentioned, my interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 is that it doesn't require seeing the cover to understand that Sports Illustrated (and other media) hyped the Indians to be contenders and a "cover jinx" ensued. A (cited) mention would get that information across. Mosmof (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

While the cover itself is mentioned in text and sourced, it is not necessary to see the cover to understand the larger point - that SI had predicted the Indians would take that season via a more in-depth story, and that failed to take place. So this is a failure of NFCC#1 - that the point can be explained via free text instead of illustrated. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 6 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.


Law & Order

The multiple cast photos fail WP:NFCC and no more than one should remain. (As an aside, since no particular photo was decided for inclusion, if someone like maybe @Masem: could figure out which one is best, I can remove the rest). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:43, 18 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.

Do we really need all of these cast pictures? Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. One cast photo, which I would pull from press materials (such as this one: [1]) would be better. Just because the cast has had significant rotation does not mean more non-free can be used, particularly as we are talking a show without significant makeup/special effects that mask the actors behind character (eg we can use actor photos to cover other principle actors that have been part of the show if they aren't in the sole cast shot). --MASEM (t) 20:42, 7 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:Internet dog.jpg

Consensus is the image is being used in accordance with law, policy and our mission. The image is appropriately being used only on the article about the image itself. The image satisfies all points of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:45, 18 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.

Nowhere near enough to "low resolution, making it unsuitable for further use" as claimed, and resolution low enough would be below our standards, since, as the article says "Steiner has earned over US $50,000 from its reprinting". So this just walks all over his commercial opportunities. Also, it is not an excerpt of a work, but the entirety of the work discussed in the article On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It's not fair use if you print an entire work. Finally, it's helpful but not necessary, I wrote I say it's spinach without using the cartoon and so can you -- "The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor" is plenty sufficient. It's not like there's artistic discussion of how the artist uses light and shadow or whatever. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The image is fine. Yes, we should be aware there are commercial opportunities for the work, which sets a higher bar for inclusion, but does not automatically eliminate it from use. It is of a low-enough resolution that any smaller would make the text unreadable (and well under a 0.1M side) - the full size image is at least 1500x1500 so this is a reasonable resize [2]. In particular, the image is the subject of the article of discussion - the image itself is notable and commented on per the sources in the article. So there's no issues here - we are using a fair-use size version of the image in conjunction with sourced discussion specifically about the image. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It does automatically eliminate it from use in this case. Here we have a project to where we forbid ourselves to use images of absolutely no conceivable commercial value made by some unknown person in 1932, and we're going to stick a knife in this guy's actual real revenue stream? A takedown order by Steiner would be absolutely justified IMO; whether it would be successful I don't know, but maybe. The image in its current resolution is plenty good enough for someone to use to make T-shirts, cards, or whatnot, paying Steiner $0. And as I say, it's not necessary -- it's an extremely simple drawing not the Mona Lisa, and "The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor" is plenty info, and if not add a couple more sentences describing the dogs in more detail if you think that's useful. As I say, I did it and so you you all. I'm not a fanatic about free use and just uploaded several fair-use pics, but c'mon. This is the most egregious violation of the policy WP:NFCCP #2 ("Respect for commercial opportunities: Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.") I've ever seen. It's straight-up theft. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
300px is nowhere close for commercial use applications. It's also comparable to notable pieces of art that are valued at much higher prices too that we have imagery of. Again, key is that the image itself is the subject of discussion of the article so not illustrating it makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem. I have to also point out that we have WP:NFCI#8, which states "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate." The cartoon and the phrase it spawned are the subject of sourced commentary, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to note, I checked with a few people in the printing industry. If you want a poster or a tee-shirt of any sellable quality, the art at minimum has to be 150 dpi. That means this image, at best, would only come out 2 inches on printed works. That's not a commercial opportunity. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no sourced commentary. Sourced commentary on a drawing would be stuff like this:
  • "The artist's use of 'found elements', as shown in this example, would later influence Higgins and Ruger in their development of 'Non-Art Art' in the 1930s."[1]
  • "This work, from the artist's 'Sno-Cone Period', shows his developing use use of lines and crosshatching to create the illusion of nausea"[2][3]
  • "Most critics have called Smith a neo-impressionist[4][5] but Wilkins called Girl With A Hat (shown left) an indication that he had 'a sneaky desire to be a illustrator for Marvel Comics'"[6]
while sourced commentary would not be stuff like this:
  • "Here's a picture of some dogs a guy drew. Sucks the be him cos we stole it cos we can (he's just some guy and we're one of the world's largest websites, you know), and it makes the page prettier. We're not 'supposed' to do that by our own 'rules', but as a practical matter we can do whatever we want, kbye!"[citation needed]
which is in essence what we're doing. Give me an argument, any kind of argument, that the unfree picture in any way, shape, or form adds to the content of the article beyond a purely and entirely decorative function. No one has done so because there is no such argument. OK fine you can't put it on a T-shirt, you can put it on your for-profit website or for-sale stickers or whatnot. We need to not be doing this, and it's a slap in the face to those editors (like me) who sweat it out not to do this, and do without decorative, layout-enhancing elements for our articles when we can't find free ones. I personally don't care, and would personally be fine with an "anything goes" approach to using images glommed from the web, but I've been told that the Foundation wants the Wikipedia to be free for downstream use to the extent reasonably possible, which I don't care about but they do, and if we're going to do this we need to have a much larger discussion about changing the rules generally. It's no good to have rules that aren't actually followed. Herostratus (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is sourced commentary about the image (the entire article in fact). We don't require the commentary to be about the visual elements of the image when considering exceptions of NFCC#2, but that the image itself is specific of discussion (in this case, why it was made, and the impact it has had). And again, the image fits our size reduction rules - 300px is nowhere near any size that significant commercial opportunity can be made. (And also add that the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes that are failures of commercial opportunity). This fits the rules as NFCC has intended. --MASEM (t) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Can this be confirmed to be correct: "the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes that are failures of commercial opportunity". Does that really automatically mean that the cartoonist or their publisher have no valid claims for protection of commercial rights, because somebody put it up on Twitter? Just because somebody else stole it, it is now a free for all? Out of curiosity, are there other New Yorker cartoons used on articles on WP? I have not found any of Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons put up in articles, though have not done an exhaustive search. These cartoons continue to have commercial opportunity long after they are published, since the New Yorker publishes them as prints to be framed and in "best of" type publications ofen enough (there is a book of them on my bedside table). --Gaff (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not free for all, but the point that is critical here is that we aren't providing the image at a size that has significant commercial value (again, with today's printing capabilities, this would be tiny on any medium is it printed on to be of any quality) - in addition to the fact we are using it in a manner that would meet US Fair Use defense laws. Note this only applies to this use on the article about the adage/comic. We would not allow this image on a page about, say, online anonymity even though it represents that concept well. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as the resolution consideration: Since this is such a simple black and white cartoon, taking a lower resolution copy such as this, blowing it up, then filling it in with black ink would be incredibly trivial with even the most rudimentary xerox machine and an inkpen, so I am not buying that argument. For a complicated detailed color image, that might be valid. --Gaff (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
However, we as in WP are not doing that. If a user took our image (for some reason instead of the higher res ones out there) and blew it up and filled in and then sold that, that person would be violating the fair use law (Our disclaimers note that the reuse of non-free media still must follow legal requirements for your country, and this would be a violation). It would not be our problem. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by this nomination. Though I'd probably be in favor of completely abolishing all fair use (except possibly for corporate logos), this image seems to be the poster child for acceptable under our current policies. It's an image of the cartoon in an article about that very cartoon. NFCC#2 is not relevant here - this isn't the kind of image that it's talking about. (It's not as though the image is super-secret and you would, if not for Wikipedia, be forced to contact the cartoonist directly for a copy.) The kind of thing where #2 would be relevant is if we were, say, attempting to use a photo from istockphoto or Getty Images under (an obviously inappropriate) claim of fair use. Our use of such a photo would deprive the istockphoto or Getty photographer of their rightful royalties - we would be using the photo for exactly the kind of thing that they make their living selling the photo for. That just isn't the case here. --B (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused now: how is a cartoonist working for the New Yorker is somehow different that a photographer working for Getty?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)
The difference isn't what - it's how. It is NOT a problem to use a Getty photo or similar IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE PHOTO ITSELF. For example, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an historic photo and we are using it to illustrate sourced commentary on the photo itself, not as a stock photo for an article about flags. In the past, we have had debates about photos from war zones where embedded journalists took photos that would certainly enhance our coverage of the topic, but where the photo itself is not iconic or historic. In such an absurd claim of fair use, our use (using the photo to illustrate the subject of the photo) is exactly the commercial purpose for which the journalist is selling their photo. For the cartoon in question, it is fine to use this cartoon to illustrate sourced discussion ABOUT THE CARTOON ITSELF. It is not fine to use this cartoon to illustrate dogs in general. --B (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that an analogy is drawn from from the Rosenthal AP Iwo Jima image, for which WP has obtained permsission noted on the file page: "Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press." That letter of permssion has either been deleted or is was never added and I don't see an OTRS report. But... if such permission were validly granted, for use of the images with an attribution license, then could it be used to illustrate an article about flags in general? This is getting off topic of the internet dogs, so more of a question for future reference and understanding. --Gaff (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept files on the basis of a "Wikipedia-only" permission or permission to use non-commercially or anything like that. So while we certainly appreciate that permission, we are only going to use the image if we could have (both legally and in accordance with our own fair use policy) used the image even if we did not have permission.[3][4][3] --B (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting these pipermail links. They add context towards understanding license policies and especially fair use. I already knew about acceptable free licenses (CC BY-SA and the like), since I have had to work pretty hard getting releases for images needed for articles on obscure small mammals. I still think Fair Use is abused quite often, as a path of least resistance, because sending out requests and asking permission is more work than just uploading and slapping a fair use template on it. Ethically, and certainly in terms of improving WP's reputation, it may be the better course to just ask for permission and go through OTRS. --Gaff (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, to summarize a few points:

  • The claim is made that the image can't be printed more than 2 inches high and therefore has no significant commercial application. Assuming the 2 inches thing is true (I do assume that) this would limit the commercial applications but not sufficiently eliminate them for an image that, after all, is a significant revenue stream for this guy ($50,000 and counting). You could still use the image on your for-profit website, or in various other commercial ways. Cartoonists don't drive Cadillacs and this guy lucked into a windfall so let's not screw him.
  • The point that "the image is widely available across the web at much larger sizes" and that this might matter is not only a terrible argument, but such a terrible argument that, to my mind, it colors all the other person's posts. It's hard for me take this person's other arguments seriously after that.
  • No one has made the argument that using the image is useful and necessary rather than purely decorative. No one has made that argument because they can't: no such argument is possible. Some hand-waving in the general direction "Well, the article is about the image, so therefore ipso facto prima facie we can show the image, q. e. d." is not an argument. It is just hand-waving. If you're talking about how the Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile has been discussed through time, you might very well need to show that smile to aid the reader's understanding of the subject. Here? We do not need to show the image. There is nothing in the image that is important beyond what can be described in a single sentence, or two or three if you feel its necessary. If we needed to describe how some physical aspect of the picture mattered -- "the relationship of the dogs, a larger dark one looming above a smaller whiter one, symbolizes the 'dark' forces of the internet subsuming the more benign ones, while the almost leering aspect of the dark dog calls to mind the sexual demimonde possibly referenced in his words[1]" -- that'd be different. But we don't.
  • Delete. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There is the argument that a verbal description of the comic would work sufficiently for the reader. If we were talking on an article about internet anonymousity, we would certainly take that approach. But the comic itself is notable, and when a non-free image itself is notable, it completely fits NFC requirements and the Foundation requirements, even if the image is one that has commercial opportunities. Take even something like Campbell's Soup Cans, which are all still under copyright and commercially reprinted. The paintings are the subject of discussion, but there's not much on the visuals about it, and the labeling alone (if one took the label off the can) would be within PDText, so we could take a picture of the can freely and use that. But we don't, obviously, because we're talking about that image. This is clearly an encyclopedic, not decorative, use of a notable image. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm still completely befuddled that this image is even remotely controversial and I thought I was one of the worst anti-fair-use (insert pejorative) here.
      1. Point #1 is an utter absurdity on every level and I'm not even sure where to begin. The image exists on websites other than Wikipedia, so it's not like we're making something available that would not otherwise be obtainable without paying him. Our purpose in using the image is for critical commentary on the image itself - not because we're looking for a funny cartoon to illustrate an article on internet culture, so our use does not at all compete with the type of use from which he is profiting, namely, licensing to people who are looking for a funny cartoon to illustrate an article on internet culture.
      2. Regarding point #2, pointing out the availability of the image is NOT a justification for fair use, rather, it is a response to the claim that our use of this image costs the copyright holder money (NFCC#2). What are the ways that our use of copyrighted content could cost the copyright holder money? Well, I can only think of two: (1) if our use constitutes fair use, would that completely eliminate his ability to sell the image? In other words, if we could claim "fair use" of some random news media photo, why would anyone ever pay for a news media photo again when they could just claim fair use? (2) you would normally have to pay the copyright holder to see it, but we're showing it to you for free. For example, if we included a clip of the best part of Metallica's Enter Sandman, now you don't need to buy the song. Or if there was a book called top 100 cool facts about Star Trek and we printed all 100 of the facts in our article, now you don't need to buy the book. The point of mentioning the image's prevalence on the internet is to explain that this is NOT the case.
      3. Regarding point #3, this view is out of sync with our normal practices. If we have an article about a modern {painting, cartoon, etc}, we show a picture of that {painting, cartoon, etc}. What cartoon is the article talking about? Why, it's talking about the cartoon depicted here.
      As I have said, I'm completely befuddled that this is even controversial at all. --B (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I too don't see the issue here also. This image is a great example of acceptable fair use on Wikipedia, for the same reasons we host the lead image of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 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:Bhutia girl with Tibetan ancestry.jpg

The image seems to be by Theodor Parr (died 1915) and therefore is {{PD-India}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:52, 18 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.

Why is a photograph of this age listed as unfree? Does the uploader mean that the photograph wasn't published immediately? For example, maybe the uploader means that it was first published after 2002 and that Th. Paar died after 1944? If so, the image would seem to violate WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably need to get more information on the source of this image that the uploader used. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proximate source is here. The same original author is credited here by the national library of Australia around the same date. The original author is Theodor Paar who was an active photographer in the late 19th century (at least from the 1870 to the 1890s). From what I can see this image is convincingly {{PD-India}} - Peripitus (Talk) 10:16, 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:SilmarillionBook LR.jpg

Consensus is the image is not necessary in the article (per WP:NFCC) and therefore should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:37, 19 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 is already one cover in Silmarillion--I don't see why we need a second one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From the article, it appears that this was for the illustrated edition, with internal art also by Ted Nasmith, but that's all unsourced. Are the illustrations enough of a difference to consider it a distinct book? The illustrated edition had two "editions" which implies that either it is a distinct book, or the word edition is just completely meaningless. Or both. Just a thought. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's probably justifiable in Ted Nasmith, the illustrator's article - it needs something to show his style and any such images will be equally copyright-bound (as is the one already in there).
As to The Silmarillion, then this book, like much Tolkien, has a "canonical" dustjacket design that is strongly associated with it. That's the 1977 cover that's also in this article. That one is important for the book article, this one far less so. I'm open to arguments that the Nasmith cover edition is sufficiently important as to justify it, but it's not something I see myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 15 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:ISO-IEC-9899-1999-cover.png

Consensus is the image is PD-text and should therefore be kept. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:39, 19 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 necessary? I don't see how this improves readers' understanding (NFCC #8). I understand for books with actual covers, but this is more of a technical report, and one that most people don't often encounter. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If this was non-free, I would agree. However, this can be categorized as a free image due to PD-text (The ISO and IEC logos are both too simple for copyright, both at commons it appears). --MASEM (t) 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an awful lot of text. Is it copyrightable? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Very little of that text is "creative" (boilerplate ownership details, etc.) , so would be fine, I believe, but let me ask our resident text copyvio expert. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Anon124: According to MoonRiddenGirl [5] we'd be hard press to call that text creative and thus copyrightable but if it were just prose, we'd attempt to summarize instead. As it is an image, we can tag it PD-text, but should include an additional notice on the file page that we (Wikipedia) believe the text is insufficiently creative to be copyrightable, but that reusers of the work should consider their local copyright laws before reusing. Also, I would make sure this is marked as not to be transferred to Commons, as the PD-text nature likely only extends through the US and similar threshold-of-originality countries. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 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:ConnoFacebookMessage.jpg

No discussion or consensus established in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Feel free to open a new discussion or take individual files to WP:FFD if deletion is the desired outcome. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:57, 18 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 copyrightable? Fails WP:NFCC#10c if so. Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 20 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.


Indiana Pacers

No discussion or consensus established in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Feel free to open a new discussion or take individual files to WP:FFD if deletion is the desired outcome. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:57, 18 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 page appears to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 20 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.


Lega Basket Serie A

No discussion or consensus established in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Feel free to open a new discussion or take individual files to WP:FFD if deletion is the desired outcome. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:57, 18 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 page seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 21 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.


Sencer Sarı

No discussion or consensus established in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Feel free to open a new discussion or take individual files to WP:FFD if deletion is the desired outcome. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 18 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 non-free pictures fail WP:FREER. Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 21 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.


BC Zepter Vienna

No discussion or consensus established in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Feel free to open a new discussion or take individual files to WP:FFD if deletion is the desired outcome. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 18 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 seems to contain too many logos. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 22 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.


Microsoft Visual Studio

Consensus is the images are useless and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:41, 19 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.
File:VSWebDes.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:ClassDiagram.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:VisualStudioOnline-Dashboard.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I am more or less indifferent to whether or not we should have multiple screenshots for various different aspects of Visual Studio. But these tiny screenshots are in no way remotely helpful to any reader anywhere. A screenshot that actually showcases some aspect of the program might meet WP:NFCC#8 by providing you with useful information. But a tiny screenshot where you can't make out any words or anything going on certainly does not. Reducing a resolution to a web-resolution shot makes sense when it's a photograph or a video game or something like that. When it's a picture of mostly text, I'm not sure that it makes sense. If it's decided that the images would otherwise meet WP:NFCC#8, we could crop them or we could resize the Visual Studio window to maybe 640x480 and retake the screenshot, then resize it down to 320x240, which would still meet our desire to have only web-resolution screenshots, but would at least make it readable. (I have all versions of Visual Studio on my computer from 2005 to 2013 and I can take any screenshot requested.) --B (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You probably mean WP:NFCC#8, not WP:NFCC#9. The purpose of the use in the article is apparently to display images which are 220×159 pixels. Other potential uses, such as viewing the files on the file information page or in the Media namespace, are irrelevant to NFCC, so it is not a problem if we reduce these further to 220×159 pixels; the article will still contain the same information. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Correct, yes, I meant NFCC#8 and have fixed my nomination to reflect that. The images, as they are, right now, this moment, both in the article and on the image description pages, are completely illegible so they could not possibly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. So if there are three options: (1) do nothing, (2) delete the images, (3) upload legible versions of the images, then #1 is definitely my third choice and I don't have a strong preference between #2 and #3. While I certainly understand your point about the resolution, now that Wikipedia's default behavior is that clicking on an image is to show a larger version of that image without navigating you away from the article, I don't know that it's a true statement any more that the purpose of a non-free image is to be rendered at the resolution it shows up as in the article. But in any event, if #3 were chosen, we could make the image so it is legible in the article itself, without clicking on it. If you have a 1080p monitor and you take a screenshot of the entire screen, then reduce it to be 200-300 pixels wide, that's going to be completely illegible. But if you resize the window to something smaller, then take a screenshot of that and only reduce it by half or so, it's legible and potentially contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. --B (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The only screenshot of the three that really is needed is the class diagram one, and that's fine at the size as it shows the "visual" nature of this aspect of the program. The other is effectively a syntax-aware text editor, and a random clip dumping ground. Both which can be explained with text. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi. Sadly, these shots are too small to be useful. Generally, screenshots in Wikipedia the number one victims of scrutiny by madness! (Second place goes to admins in RfA.) If they were of higher resolution, I could put them to good uses. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 23 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.


Strawberry Lane

Consensus is the extra cast photos are excessive (per WP:NFCC) and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:42, 19 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 seem to be too many cast pictures in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the third cast picture seems more appropriate to the article, the other two are just excessive. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 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:Asian-five-nations-logo 5808 SQ MEDIUM.jpg

No discussion or consensus in nearly two months. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:44, 19 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.

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 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.


Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

Consensus is only one game cover is appropriate for the article (per WP:NFCC). the other has already been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:46, 19 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 violate WP:NFCC#3a. A game made for two different platforms only needs a cover image of one of the editions. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

One or the other, but not both. While the artwork is "different" the style and approach is equivalent so both aren't needed. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 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.


Jewish culture#Comics, cartoons and animation

Consensus is the non-free images are not acceptable for use in this section like this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:47, 19 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.

Violation of WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. We don't need to see images of works of Jewish creators to understand that there were comics created by those of Jewish descent. Free images would be fine, but not non-free for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This article has to be one of the worst examples of fair use overuse I have seen in years. --B (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of what is there now. Would anyone like to make a case that any of these is used transformatively?

It looks like even the ones that aren't in galleries are just used decoratively. --B (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In every case, the non-free is decorative, where a free image of the actual creator would be more appropriate for inclusion in a article on the people of Jewish faith that are creative contributors. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 28 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:Iraq - Mawtini (Vocal).ogg

Image does not meet the requirements of WP:NFC and should therefore be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:54, 19 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.

Description not properly filled in, I doubt it is applicable - TheChampionMan1234 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a national anthem so a sample might be appropriate but not a 3min 20sec sample. This has to be trimmed down significantly. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Also, the youtube page provided as the source provides no evidence that this recording is owned by the Government of Iraq. - TheChampionMan1234 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips, samples "should not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter..." I also believe the bit rate for non-free audio must be at or below 64 kpbs -- this one is at 79. Levdr1lp / talk 08:06, 30 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.


Sega Studios

Consensus is the images all fail WP:NFCC and should be removed. At this time, none of the offending images are currently in the article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:57, 19 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.

All of the non-free files on this page violate WP:NFCC#8 and sometimes also WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That article needs a severe overall, period, but yes, all the logos are inappropriately used. (If they split the article on the notable sub-studios, of which I'm pretty sure a few can be spun out like Sonic Team, the logos would be fine on those sub-pages.) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Without question there are entirely too many non-free files, but as Masem points out, some of the division logos could be used if/when split-articles are created. Levdr1lp / talk 07:56, 30 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:KmartFoodsLogo.png

No discussion or consensus in over a month. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:14, 20 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.

PD-Text. Levdr1lp / talk 06:41, 30 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:KDollar logo.jpg

No discussion or consensus in over a month. Procedural close due to inactivity. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:14, 20 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.

PD-Text. Levdr1lp / talk 06:42, 30 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.


WYCL old non-free logos

No discussion or consensus in over a month. Procedural close due to inactivity. If deletion is desired result, try WP:FFD. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:14, 20 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.

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Old non-free logos for radio station WYCL. Both represent former brands for a small market daytime-only AM radio station, neither of which lasted more than a year or two. Levdr1lp / talk 07:29, 30 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:Motel-6-logo.svg

SVG vectorization is copyrightable but unless there is evidence of actual work in making the vectorization, it is not copyrighted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:19, 20 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 originally uploaded this SVG image after downloading an EPS version of the Motel 6 logo from seeklogo.com and then converting that version to SVG. Given further study and consideration, however, it appears that vector images of non-free logos that are uploaded to Wikipedia should be vector versions that came from the logo's copyright holder and not from a source such as seeklogo.com where the vectorization of a logo may have been done by a third party. If that is the case, then it may be useful for someone to find a vector version of the Motel 6 logo that was produced by Motel 6's owner or the logo designer, or to replace the image with a low resolution PNG version. (As a side note, there is the question as to whether this logo is a case of PD-text, though the border on the 6 may make that problematic.) --Elegie (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Vectorization can be a copyrightable act in and of itself, but the underlying image is pretty clearly PD-Text. Note File:Best Western logo.svg which was declared PD-text by the US Copyright Office in File:Best Western Logo.pdf this letter. In particular, that stylized W is a lot more complex then the border on the 6.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:34, 2 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:Coat of arms of Shetland.jpg

Consensus is the images fails multiple points of WP:NFCC including #1 and therefore should be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:20, 20 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.

File is being used in two (three?) separate articles and seems like it's a candidate for non-free use, but no appropriate specific non-free rationale for each use seems to have been provided so it looks like it fails WP:NFCC#10c for each use. What is the best course of action in such a case? Remove the images from the articles? Tag the file with {{di-no fair use rationale}}? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the above also applies to File:Orkney_Islands_Arms.jpg - Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Both images violate WP:NFCC#1: freely licensed replacements could be created from the same blazon. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Stefan. There are quite a few similar files found at Category:Coat of arms images which are licensed as "non-free". What should generaly should be done with respect to coats of arms licensed as non-free and more specifically for the two files referred to above? FFD? - Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 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:Angie Watts.jpg

Consensus is the image should only be used int he article about Angie Watts in accordance with WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:24, 20 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.

File is a screenshot from the TV series The Eastenders. It is being used in the character page Angie Watts and Wimbledon Manor House. It seems to have an appropriate rationale for use in "Angie Potts", but does not have any rationale at all for "Wimbledon Manor House" per WP:NFCC#10c. In addition, the image also does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 for "Wimbeldon Manor House". The article mentions Anita Dobson who played "Angie Watts" but using a screenshot of her character as substitute for the real person seems inappropriate for anything other than "Annie Watts". Just for reference, I have previously removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" per "WP:NFCC#10c" and WP:NFCCE; but this removal was questioned by editor Roganjosh3. Therefore, I am discussing this new image here first so that others may comment as to whether it satisfies WP:NFCCP and to avoid appearing to be acting inappropriately. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments deemed inappropriate and to fix punctuation - 05:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)]

Yes, this removal from the Manor House article is appropriate. Character images are nearly often used without any specific discussion of the character's appearance or commentary about it, so unless these additional discussions exist, non-free character images are generally limited to use to identify a character that has a standalone notable page. Use on a show's page is generally not allowed. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Masem. Is there any way the image can be "saved" for that particular article by adding a non-free use rationale or is removal the only option? I am asking this because the first I time I removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" I was told it was vandalism and that I should have discussed it beforehand. I thought removing such images was acceptable per WP:NFCCE, but I will refrain from unilaterally doing so in the future if it is considered to be vandalism or otherwise inappropriate.
With respect to "Angie Watts", I have also been told that it was inappropriate for me to bring up the image for discussion because it shows poor judgement and may be interpreted as being done out of malice/retribution. That was not my rationale at all, but if it is inappropriate for me to remove the image or even further discuss it, then please let me know and I will refrain from doing so. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
One could technically add a rational for the use of the image on the Wimbledon Manor House page which would meet NFCC#10c, but NFCC#8 would still be an issue. And since this is a second use where the first use is generally okay, this board is the right board to discuss it. And while there can potentially be seen as issues of biting back, NFC always must be dealt with when there are problems, so it's arguably okay to do that here. But keep in mind that consistently going after images of a specific user or the like might be seen in the larger picture as being a battleground mentality, but that's not an issue we deal with here. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood Masem. Thanks for the feedback. It was not trying to "go after the images of any specific editor", but I will avoid editing that particular page any further so as to not give the wrong impression. I will leave it up to others to remove the image if such a thing is deemed necessary. What is the best thing to do when coming across a non-free image being used in an article without the proper non-free rationale? Simply adding a rationale just for the sake of adding a rationale does not seem appropriate. Is there a template that should be used to tag the image or article to indicate that a problem exists which needs (immediate) attention? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"I have previously removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" per "WP:NFCC#10c" and WP:NFCCE, but this removal was questioned by editor Roganjosh3".That is a blatant and total lie. Your own talk page proves that. You removed the picture on the basis that it had no fair use rationale, I replaced it on the basis that it was out of copyright anyway which you accepted, this was done without any debate any questioning or any comment. At no point did you A)even give me the opportunity to discuss it, before you removed it B)I did not question your deletion. C)You have then entered a discussion accusing me of all sorts of nonsense about indirect criticism, which is tantamount to trolling bearing in mind its inappropriateness on that file and on that discussion and at that juncture. D)You are asking here about appropriate action yet in your diatribe response on the first image possibly unfree page, you show no such meekness in expressing your certainty over the rules. E)I am horrified that after you have deleted dozens of the same ilk images for the same reason, you now have the barefaced cheek to ask how to do the job properly. Isn't that something you should have found out before you went on your deletion spree? Your attempt to start a deletion on this image at this juncture bearing in mind the atmosphere and debate over the other image at this present moment in time, is nothing short of deliberately inflamatory and provocative and more than likely motivated by malice and retribution. You also seem to be trying to elicit sympathy and consequently recruitment of others against me, with the use of a totally different tone to the one you have used towards me on the other discussion. I ask you now to desist your persecution of me or this will become a very serious matter.Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless of anything else, and any past discussions, a non-free image of a living person can never be used to illustrate an article about a house that they lived in. As such I have removed the image of Angie Watts from the article about the house.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me, where exactly here does it show that I questioned your removal of the coat of arms???????

User talk page discussion regarding another non-free image (the "coat-of-arms" image referred to above) removed from the same article, but not directly related to the non-free usage of "Annie Watts.jpg"

(refactored from User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/April#Wimbledon Council Arms)
Wimbledon Council Arms
Hi there Marchjuly, just to let you know as a courtesy, that I have uploaded another version of the image to include the changed rationale which is not under the fair use policy. As these images were originally uploaded en-masse, last decade, the fair use claim (I think they were all uploaded with that rationale), was not relevant for this pic anyway as the copyright had expired. Plus it needed a separate rationale for each use as you have pointed out.Roganjosh3 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Roganjosh3. No worries. All that the image was needed was a specific rationale for that particular use since it was being licensed as non-free. Anyway, I'm glad that things have been sorted out. Finally, since the File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg seems (at least to me) to be essentially the same as File:Arms-wimbledon.jpg, the later probably no longer satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since the "new" image would be considered a free equivalent. If that is the case, then the "new" file should replace the "old" file on Municipal Borough of Wimbledon too. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the Council one should ideally be replaced and the original tagged for deletion. I wasn't sure if it was possible to change the non-free into free, so I uploaded another. Perhaps you would like to do the necessary?Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind, but I think all that needs to be done is add a "1" to the old file name so that the article uses the new file. As for deleting the old file, once it is replaced it will become an orphan and automaticlally fail WP:NFCC#7. It can be then marked for speedly deletion per WP:CSD#F1 or WP:F5, or it can simply be left as is since another editor or bot will eventually catch it and tag it for speedy deletion. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sounds sensible. ThanksRoganjosh3 (talk) 10:37, 4 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:AA Drink-leontien.nl Logo.GIF

Per WP:NFC#UUI#14 logos cannot be used on individual event seasons, but only on the main event article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:25, 20 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 it acceptable to use the logo of the AA Drink-leontien.nl cycling team in articles about specific articles about individual seasons? I removed the image from 2011 AA Drink-leontien.nl season and 2012 AA Drink-leontien.nl season because the file did not have a separate, specific nfu rationale for either article. I can add the rationale, and then re-add the image to the articles if that's all that is needed to comply with the NFCCP.

In addition to the logo, there is also File:AA Drink-leontien.nl jersey 2011.jpg being used in all three of the aforementioned articles even though it only has a nfu rationale for "AA Drink-leontien.nl". Once again, I can create the nfu rationales for the other two articles, but the logo and jersey convey essentially the same information so I am not sure if this OK per WP:NFCC#3a. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be used for individual seasons per WP:NFC#UUI#14. It's fine to illustrate the article on the team, but not their individual seasons. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. What about the jersey file? Is this also acceptable for the team page, but unacceptable for the individual season pages? Does the same reasoning also apply to logos of sports organizations? Is it, for example, acceptable to use File:A-League NYL logo.png in National Youth League (Australia), but not acceptable to use in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League? I originally removed the file from the season page because it did not have a nfu rationale. Earlier today, I created a nfu rationale and re-added the file to the season page. Should I now go back and undo my undo per "WP:NFC#UUI#14"? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, yes, these are all poor re-uses of logos. The one allowance we do make is that if a new logo/jersey/whatever is used in a particular season, it is fine to include that new logo on that season (presuming that the change is discussed in text). --MASEM (t) 16:48, 13 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:Charlotteflag.png

Consensus is the image is non-free and hsould be treated as such. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:26, 20 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.

First question, is it actually non-free? The description says it was adopted in 1929, in which case it might be public domain. This flag is used in seven different articles and if it is subject to copyright protection, the only one in which it is at all appropriate is Charlotte, North Carolina. B (talk) 22:25, 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:TV2 logo 1980s.svg

Consensus is the image is pd-ineligible-USonly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:28, 20 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.

Any thoughts on whether this is copyrightable? The similar File:TV1 logo 1980s.svg is tagged as not copyrightable. Both are used in Template:SVT Nyheter and so in some way the disconnect needs to be resolved. If they are copyrightable, they need to be removed from the template. If they are not copyrightable, then this image description page needs to be updated accordingly. B (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@B: Ineligible for copyright protection in the United States in my opinion, since the logo only consists of simple geometric shapes, i.e. three colored lines. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:40, 13 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:EWwalkingdeadcover.jpg

Image is not required and should be removed due to WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:32, 20 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.

Looking at the article, the cover doesn't seem necessarily to communicate to readers that the show made the cover of the magazine. Mosmof (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree; not required. Remove/Delete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 15 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:Lamborghini Logo.svg

Consensus is if the image is not being used (read displayed) than it is not a violation of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:34, 20 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.

How do we interpret WP:NFCC#9 with respect to userscripts? Mediawiki reports this as being 'used' in User:KamaljitchakrabortyM4074291/modern.css. Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly discourage the use, but as it would be used (for having a NFCC only come up for that user and no other) it's hard to say if that's a problem. (The script only calls out a file, that itself is not a direct copy violation). --MASEM (t) 14:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it matters if the css file is 'using' it, as it's not being displayed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 11 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.


Online Bomberman

All images except the main screenshot are uncessary and fail WP:NFCC#3a. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:36, 20 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 seems to contain more images than necessary, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Only one screenshot is necessary, that likely being the one in the infobox to show the basic gameplay/look and feel of it. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 11 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_64&oldid=1146747584"