 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 73 |
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Borderline case. Simple elements combined in a more complex design. Kept as non-free (permission would need verification). Stale discussion for 2 months. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 29 September 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.
Image appears to be too simple to be copyrighted and licensed as non-free. Should this be licensed as {{PD-logo}} instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have some misgivings. It contains shadows, colours and some other features that might lift it above TOO. I wonder if we can ask for permission, though - the "Other information" part of its rationale suggests that it was uploaded on behalf of the organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 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.
Tagged as PD-logo and Move to Commons. US-based group. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 29 September 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.
Image is licensed as non-free, but appears too simple to be protected by copyright. Image is used in 32 Records, an now-defunct American record company. Think this image is simple enough to qualify as {{PD-logo}}, but for sure it seems to qualify as {{PD-USonly}} - Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- {{PD-logo}} in this case. It's the logo of an US-based group according to our article, so even if it is copyrightable in other countries it would qualify as "free in both the US and its origin country" and thus as {{Move to Commons}}. That font and a filled circle with text in it are not original enough by my estimate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 6 July 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.
Copy to Commons. Non-creative text logo. US-based company. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 29 September 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.
Image seems simple enough to fall below the threshold of originality and be licensed as {{PD-logo}} since 4K Media Inc. is an American company - Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty textlogo-ey, I agree. Not seeing any particular creative style elements other than colour and font, there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 9 July 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.
Image was replaced by a free image and deleted per WP:F5 in August 2015, so no further discussion is needded. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 30 September 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.
Replaced on L.S. Lowry by a PD image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- File:Dwelling.jpg being used in the same article should also be removed in my opinion. There's no sourced discussion of the painting at all anywhere in the article, so usage does not show the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 and is, therefore, purely decorative in my opinion. If the image is simply being used to show what a Lowery painting looks, then a non-free image is not needed since a free image could provide the same information per WP:NFCC#1. -Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 7 August 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.
- 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.
Image is being used in Veronica TV (SBS) and Big Brother (Dutch TV series)#Logo. A non-free use rationale has been provided for each article, but I don't think the use in the "Big Brother" article satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since the TV station's logo does not improve the reader's understanding of the TV show itself in anyway and is just being used for decorative purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- The logo is likely PD-USonly, being only text and a simple shape. It is not PD everywhere in countries with a lower TOO, so it can't go to commons, but here it can be treated as a free image, so the image on BB is actually likely ok. (I also note the article does attempt to justify the use of the logo to explain why the BB logo has the similar "swosh" aspect). --MASEM (t) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Should the nfurs then be removed and the image re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}} with {{trademark}} also added? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- The file has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F8 because File:Veronica-TV.svg has been uploaded to Commons. I'm not sure, however, whether the Commons version is going survive (per Masem above) so not also not sure whether this thread is OK to close. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Should the nfurs then be removed and the image re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}} with {{trademark}} also added? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 10 June 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.
- 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.
Image is currently being used in Watchmen, Modern Age of Comic Books and Graphic novel. A non-free use rationale is provided for all three, but it seems as if this image is really only needed in "Watchmen". There is some critical discussion of Watchmen in Graphic novel#Adoption of the term, but this more than sufficiently handled using text and the stand-alone article is wikilinked so I'm not sure if WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. In "Modern Age of Comic Books", image is being used in the infobox which seems totally inappropriate since the article is about a period in the history of comic books and Watchmen is only mentioned twice (once in the lede and once in Modern Age of Comic Books#The rise of anti-heroes. This usage seems problematic per No. 5 of WP:NFC#UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Both uses can likely be justified better within the prose. Watchmen is a strong example for both of the other topics, but that needs to be established better in the prose to use them as non-free examples. (this is similar to the use of non-free images to illustrate schools of paint styles, as long as the non-free example is clearly stated in the prose as a an obvious example, then that's generally good for these broader categories). --MASEM (t) 04:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Not sure if that means the images should be removed or not. Sorry, but my brain is just working a bit slower than usual today. Is the infobox use in "Modern Age of Comic Books" OK? Would you recommend posting on each article's talk page asking that the information about the images be fleshed out a bit more? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- What should be done is drop a notification on the talk page of the article to point to here, or to start a new discussion on that talk page, noting that more prose about Watchmen as a prime example of a Modern Age needs to be established in the article to be able to use the non-free cover art. (For example, this google books link [1] establishes Watchmen as one of two comics considered the start of the Golden Age, so that should just be documented better). --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Not sure if that means the images should be removed or not. Sorry, but my brain is just working a bit slower than usual today. Is the infobox use in "Modern Age of Comic Books" OK? Would you recommend posting on each article's talk page asking that the information about the images be fleshed out a bit more? - Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 10 June 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.
Appears to be borderline, therefore we should assume copyrighted so NFCC is applied. Mdann52 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 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.
Does this icon pass the threshold of originality? – czar 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion it does. Others will disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! For that matter, what about the similar Photos (application) logo: File:Photos icon for OS X.png? @Hammersoft and Masem: – czar 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- That one starts to get into a more tricky area. While it technically is just all simple shapes and a drop shadow and a gradient, there's more creativity involved in how transparency is used to create additional shapes/colors that would make it better to assume non-free here. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
More abstractly, I've always felt uncomfortable effectively voiding someone's copyright when we here are not lawyers in Intellectual Property. We don't really know, nor do we have a professional basis on which to discern, how a court would rule in regards to whether the threshold had been passed or not. There are obvious cases, and anything less than obvious should, I think, remain marked as non-free. Doing so does not inhibit us, and helps protect works that are potentially protected. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft, I might have misinterpreted your first post—do you think the Google Photos logo is PD or not? – czar 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- No. I think it's too gray area of a case for us to wave a wand and remove IP rights from the rights holder. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 12 June 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.
Image orphaned, having been replaced by higher quality actual logo rather than the screenshot. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 5 October 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.
Image appears to be a screenshot from a 3 News newcast. It has a rationale for the article, but no source is given other that MediaWorks New Zealand. Not sure why a screenshot is needed when the logo can be found here on the station's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 6 July 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.
NFCR is not for intended deletion of images; since CSD was rejected, the proper venue for this is FFD (if not the article talk page first to establish consensus). --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 October 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.
Procedural nomination. Originally tagged with "Per WP:FREER, if the subject can be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content then such image fails the free use rationale. That is the case in this instance. The image that triggered coverage of this incident is the photo of a 14-year old kid in a NASA T-shirt being handcuffed, and not the photo of the clock. The article include all descriptions of the photo made in reliable sources about the clock, and analysis by different people of the photo. As we have such detailed descriptions of the photo, WP:FREER applies" Mdann52 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably this should be at FFD (single use, single image, and an NFCC#8/#1 issue) but was there not another image of the clock at FFD ? What was the fate of that one? Note that just because the local PD allowed use of the image doesn't mean it's free or any better than the other image if that was being used as fair use. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I know there are no other images of the clock. Irving PD released only one image (a higher res version of this file), and the family hasn't released any to my knowledge. This image was deleted from Commons where it didn't belong due to being non-free, but I don't believe any image of the clock has been discussed at FFD. This file was nominated for CSD as unfree, but that nomination was rejected (twice actually, once by DHeyward and later by Explicit). Dragons flight (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- As stated in the image description and elaborated at length at File talk:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg, this is a unique historical image due to its role in the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. This image was released by the Irving Police Department to help explain their actions, and was the only image of the clock available when many people were forming an opinion about the incident (e.g. President Obama saying "nice clock" would presumably have been reacting to this image). There has also been extended third-party analysis of what Mohamed did based on people attempting to dissect this image, some of which is discussed in the article. In my personal opinion, the role that this particular image played in shaping the perceptions of the event more than justifies its use under NFCC. It contributes to the understanding of the event by allowing readers to see what others were reacting to in a way that can not be fully matched by mere words. Anyway, that's my opinion. I would again note there is additional related discussion at the file talk page, as well as some comments at the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 21:57, 5 October 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.
Film of the 1937 Fox vault fire
Stale discussion about a possible upload. Question answered. --GermanJoe (talk) 16:01, 6 October 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.
No Wikipedia file link, as this is not currently uploaded to the project. In 2007, historical video of the 1937 Fox vault fire was uploaded to YouTube here. So far as I am able to determine, this footage was not previously published; however the title cards suggest that it may have been included in a period newsreel. If so, pretty much all the subsequent problems go away, but as far as I can tell, that will be completely possible to determine.
- I assume that film of a specific historical event, even one involving public buildings, and taken from public space, does not constitute public domain footage, even considering freedom of panorama. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm fairly sure this remains copyrighted work.
- This video stridently meets most NFCC requirements, but I have a concern about NFCC #4. The film is identified as having been created by one "W. Zabransky", very likely William Zabransky Jr., then-former chief of the Little Ferry Fire Department, who died in the early 1990s. The film was digitized and uploaded by Frank Fuchs, also of the Little Ferry Fire Department, after having received the physical copy of the film from an unspecified family member. It is functionally impossible to determine who the legal rightsholder would have been in 2007 (possibly Zabransky's son, if copyright had not been assigned to a third party), much less currently in 2015 (Zabransky III has since also died).
- If we take the 2007 YouTube upload to be the first publication, can we assume that adequate permissions were granted to satisfy NFCC#4?
- Alternatively, does the possibility of a contemporary newsreel (or any other period publication) affect NFCC #4? If such a use existed, then the rights status of the 2007 upload would no longer be relevant for NFCC #4 purposes. Is there an obligation to show that such a publication did happen?
- If a worst-case scenario where NFCC#4 cannot be adequately satisfied, is it acceptable to link to the YouTube video, or does the uncertain copyright status make such a link fall under WP:ELNEVER?
This is a striking piece of film history: unique, irreplaceable, and with considerable encyclopedic value. I want nothing more than to be able to include it in our article, which I'll beat my own drum by saying is among the most comprehensive treatments of the event available. But I want to make sure I have my ducks in a row before boldly doing so. Assistance is greatly appreciated! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think this basically has two end results: worst case that it is copyrighted until 70 yr after Zabransky's death (read: 2060s) if the YouTube publication was the first, or its in the PD now. Taking the worst case of it being copyrighted, you've shown what are likely reasonable steps to assure a line of ownership authority that "previous publication" is fine, the YT link would not be considered a copyvio and could be used as a EL. But I could also see the use of screencaps from the film or a short segment of the film to illustrate the article on the fire which the film captures under NFCC without too much concern as long as you include this rigorous analysis of the situation.
- I think we do need to presume it non-free - yes the likelihood of a prior newsreel publication seems strong and would be great if it were PD, but we'd rather have proof-positive this is the case. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, and is pretty much what I'd considered. I'm likely away from useful computers on business for a few days, but afterward I'll see what I can do about excerpting the useful parts of the film (although it's already only about 1m in length, there's no real need for the black frames). I'd much rather readers of the article be able to see the footage directly rather than point them at YouTube via EL. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:58, 28 July 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.
Below threshold for US-logos. Tagged as Move to Commons. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:35, 6 October 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.
Shoulder sleeve insignia of 850th Horizontal Engineer Company. Image appears to be too simple to be licensed as non-free and likely does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. Should the licensing be changed to {{PD-logo}} or something similar and tagged for a move to Commons? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Should be PD-USOnly, and could be moved to commons since it originates in US. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tagged the image as "PD-USonly" per above, but that template includes a "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" warning so I'm not sure if it's also OK to add a {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} tag. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- PD-USonly is written under the assumption that the file originates in a different country and is copyrightable there. If it originates in the US and isn't copyrightable there, then you can move it to Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tagged the image as "PD-USonly" per above, but that template includes a "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" warning so I'm not sure if it's also OK to add a {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} tag. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 27 August 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.
.png){kind=link}
Below threshold for US-logos. Tagged as Move to Commons. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:37, 6 October 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.
Licensed as non-free but seems simple enough for at least {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Should be PD-USonly. I believe the US Interstate badge is PD-USgov if not simple enough on its own. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Do you think this is a candidate for a move to Commons since the organization is based out of the United States? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Generally yes - if the logo originated in a US company and meets US's TOO, but would have unlikely met the UK one, it still remains under the fact that it likely cannot be copyrighted in the originating country so it remains uncopyrightable everywhere, and thus fine at commons. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem. Do you think this is a candidate for a move to Commons since the organization is based out of the United States? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 27 August 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.
- 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.
Licensed as non-free but seems simple enough for {{PD-USonly}}. Image is also tagged with {{Non-free with permission}}, but not sure if permission is actually needed or relevant in this case. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 27 August 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.
- 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:Amanjiwo logo.gif, File:Amanjiwo Logo.jpg and File:Amankila logo.gif. Are these really original enough to be copyrightable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- They are all text strings in the same font (within each case) , so this universally fails copyright thresholds and can be treated as free and uploadable to commons. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thought so. They are now tagged for deletion as orphaned non-free files; any objections to changing the tags now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the tags, given the lack of objections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thought so. They are now tagged for deletion as orphaned non-free files; any objections to changing the tags now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:32, 29 August 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.
The file was speedy deleted by Explicit under criterion F7. --RJaguar3 | u | t 15:10, 6 October 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 currently displayed on Jim Harbaugh. However, the subject of this article is already defined by a photo in the infobox, and this image is not a free image. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. Both persons are still living, so it is possible for someone to take a photo of each of them individually or even together and license it as a free image. Moreover, it's not needed contextually for the reader to understand Harbaugh talking to his quarterback or any other player. There's nothing unique or special about that image that cannot be explained using text so usage is decorative and not appropriate. For reference, notifications regarding other similar images have been placed on the uploader's user talk, so perhaps they just are not very familiar with the NFCC. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 2 October 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.
Image removed from articles where it doesn't meet UUI §17. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 8 October 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 fails WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in Real Madrid C.F.. SLBedit (talk) 03:26, 24 June 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.
Image replaced and deleted as orphaned non-free file. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 8 October 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.
No free equivalent is not true; commons:Category:Rod Laver has several, some already in Rod Laver article. Uploader said "Should be removed if any verified public domain photo materializes." jnestorius(talk) 16:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- When I uploaded that poster image those photos from "Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo" did not exist. I assume those Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo photos are public domain, and if so we could certainly take this image down. It was simply the only image we had for the Rod Laver article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 30 June 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.
Source link appears to be fine, no other issues. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 8 October 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.
Image is licensed as non-free and the source is given only as "Mike Tigas flickr". Since this is a photograph of a sculpture, I think it's fair to assume that it is copyrighted, right? Shouldn't there be some way to verify the licensing used by the Flickr account? Why not use an image from the park's official website instead if a suitable one can be found? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes if you follow the image, you'll see a set of circular icons on the image page, this uses the basic CC-BY. That means the photographer has given the license of his photo as free, but the work remains derivative. This is better than an "official" image from the park as that photograph is not necessarily under free terms, so we'd have to wait for the copyright of the photograph to expire before it would be free, compared to waiting for the copyright on the sculpture to be free which will come first. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 7 July 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.
License changed to PD-USonly and image tagged as "trademark". --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 8 October 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.
Image is licensed as non-free but seems to be a simple combination of text and shapes which means it might qualify as at least {{PD-USonly}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely PD-USonly. It might be okay worldwide, but at least in the US it is clearly uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 9 July 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.
- 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 a living person who, as an actor, likely makes lots of public appearances. It seems likely that someone could snap a free pic of him to use instead. Source of image unclear, but appears to be a publicity shot. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:59, 8 October 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 was removed from Moonwalker at the end of July 2015, so it is now only being used in Michael Jackson's Moonwalker and such usage seems NFCC acceptable for the reasons given by Masem. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 13 October 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.
A video game screenshot being used in Michael Jackson's Moonwalker and Moonwalker. Image has a very basic non-free use rationale for each article, but the statement "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article." is not clearly not true since the image in such a way at all. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 since the screenshot is not being discussed at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The image is not appropriate at the Moonwalker page since there's a separate article for the games. On the game page, the gameplay section could be expanded to describe the game from sources (in fact, this should happen per VG standards) so the image should be fine there on the reasonable presumption it can be done. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 17 June 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 was nominated for deletion via FFD and the result was delete. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 13 October 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.
Does this file have appropriate fair use rationale? It is a TV series poster, used in the article body (not infobox). I asked this question on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but didn't get any responses. Random86 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- No - since they are living people it is replaceable for identifying people: as for spellings, that is what citations are for. If there is noteworthy commentary related to the poster in the article, such as explaining where it was posted, significance of poses, layout, colours or fonts, then the rationale could be updated. Otherwise delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add that if it was a group cast shot of the participants in a reality show (which is often done, with the group posed for promotional photos), that would not necessary be freely replaceable as to get that group gathered for a free photo is no assurance. However, this is not a cast shot but just a montage of the contestants separately so we definitely can use free images to replace this. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated the file for deletion via FFD. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 5. All are welcome to comment. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 5 October 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.
Licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" and image tagged for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 13 October 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.
Image seems simple enough to be licensed as at least {{PD-USonly}} and not as non-free. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aye, too simple for copyright. And if it's an US-based company, it would actually qualify as Commons material.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Licensing has been changed to "PD-USonly" per above. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 29 September 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.
Sourcing information in the non-free use rationale for 21st Century Film Corporation has been updated per discussion, so WP:NFCC#10a no longer seems to be an issue. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 13 October 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.
Image is being used in infobox for 21st Century Film Corporation. Image was missing a source, but the uploader has said they got the image from this Logopedia page. Company has been out of business for quite some time, so there's no official webpage or social media accounts or archived versions which can be found to source the image. Is it OK to use the Logopedia page as a source? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- The file information page seems to violate WP:LINKVIO. I'd assume that the file information page needs to be fixed so that it satisfies both WP:NFCC#10a and WP:LINKVIO... --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't even consider "LINKVIO" Stefan2. Is there a way to fix the license if none the info in NFCC#10a can be found? Otherwise, I don't think a source for the image is going to be able to be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 2 July 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's licensing has been changed to "PD-logo" and tagged for a move to Commons per discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 13 October 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.
Image seems to be too simple to be copyrighted and licensed as non-free. Should this be licensed as {{PD-logo}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It would be PD-USonly but has enough creativity to be copyrightable in UK and others (where I think it comes from too). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to this it's actually an US-based company, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Changed licensing to "PD-USonly" per above. The StartProject, the creator of the app, seems to be based out of California per its official Twitter so also tagged it for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- According to this it's actually an US-based company, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 4 July 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.
- 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.
Image is used in Channel 4 and Channel Four Television Corporation and has a non-free rationale for each article. However, it seems that "Channel 4" is a subsidiary of the corporation so No. 17 of NFC#UUI would apply here, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't so much a parent/subsidiary relationship as it is a legal entity/brand identity. In any case, the stylized numeral 4 image is the official logo of both, and should be included in both articles. --Senator2029 “Talk” 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the current websites, the TV station proper uses [2] this logo, which is not the same as the corporate one (which is the one here). --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The logo that Masem mentions is for their "digital distribution platform" logo. See this press release. --Senator2029 “Talk” 07:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Senator2029: The source link you provided in the non-free use rationale you added for the article is just a wikilink to an image file that was deleted in 2008. I'm pretty sure that's not acceptable, and I think what is needed is a source that shows this is actually the logo of Channel 4. Regarding the use of the same image in both articles, the "digital distribution platform" logo does seem to be the one the channel is using exclusively on it's official website (I couldn't find the other logo at all), so that logo might be able to be used. The press release you cited above says "All 4 [the new logo] will replace the 4oD brand on all platforms from the end of Q1 2015." I assuming this means all six logos, which includes the corporate one, shown at the top of the press release. Regardless, if Channel 4 is part of the Channel 4 TV corp, then the same logo shouldn't really be used in both articles, even if it is the de-facto official logo for both, per No. 17 of the UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The logo that Masem mentions is for their "digital distribution platform" logo. See this press release. --Senator2029 “Talk” 07:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the current websites, the TV station proper uses [2] this logo, which is not the same as the corporate one (which is the one here). --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
![[2]](http://all4nav.channel4.com/static/4nav/4.2.0/assets/images/header-logo.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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.
No additional comments have been received in more than three months, so per Masem use in 5280 is considered acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 14 October 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.
Image is used in infobox of 5280. It has a rationale for the article, but File:5280 magazine logo.jpg is already being used as the primary means of identification in the article, this is not needed per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Image would most likely be acceptable for an article about this particular issue, but not for the main article about the magazine.- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I believe this is standard practice for magazines and newspapers to have the standalone publication title and then an example front page/cover to show the layout. (Exceptions only seem to be if a cover is highlighted as part of the body of the article, the cover image is moved into the body, such as at Time (magazine) or Wired (magazine). So this is fine. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Understand. Would the cover of any issue of the magazine do? The one being used in the article is from December 2012 and this is the one from July 2015. They seem to me to essentially provide the same information, but not sure when or if a cover image becomes too old to be relevant any longer. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 10 July 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.
No additional comments have been made in more than three months. The licensing for File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl.jpg was changed to "PD-ineligible" and the file was tagged for a move to Commons; The licensing of File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg, however, is being left as "non-free album cover" because it is unclear whether the label is part of the album art or part of the packaging. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 14 October 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.
Are the images eligible for copyright in the UK? They don't seem eligible in the US. George Ho (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The threshold of originality is very low in the UK, far lower than the US, but I would suspect that they may not even pass that. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 11 July 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.
No additional comments have been made in more than two months and the sourcing issue was resolved so non-free usage in 7de laan seems to be acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 14 October 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.
Image is being used in infobox of 7de laan. It has a non-free use rationale for the article, but I can't seem to find the image on the show's official website. Could this be a screenshot? Does it need {{Non-free television screenshot}} if it is? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- The logo was sourced from 7de Laan's official Facebook page on the day of its adoption (23 June 2015). The logo could not be obtained from the official website as the site had not yet been updated with the new logo. Knyzna1 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 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 is currently only being used in Colombo Central Bank bombing, so all NFCC issues appear to be resolved per discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 14 October 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 image is used in two articles - Colombo Central Bank bombing and Terrorism in Sri Lanka - and the purpose of use is given as "To illustrate the magnitude of the destruction caused by this attack" for both articles. Whilst this may qualify for under criteria 8 of WP:NFCI for Colombo Central Bank bombing I don't believe it does for Terrorism in Sri Lanka. I would welcome your views.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonable in the attack article (a historical image of the resultant blast), but not acceptable in the overall terrorism article, since the attack article is linked from that, and merely serving to illustrate. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 15 August 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.
.svg){kind=link}
Image has been removed from all articles except International Ski Federation where it usage is deemed NFCC compliant -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used in 79 articles: fails WP:NFCCP#3 (Minimal usage). Rationale is provided only for article International Ski Federation: fails WP:NFCCP#10 (Image description page). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The only way this logo's use in so many articles could be justified would be if it is deemed to be too simple to be protected by copyright and re-tagged as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-USonly}}. Otherwise, only its use in International Ski Federation is acceptable per WP:NFC and the image should should be removed from all the other articles for not satisfying WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8 as well as No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. How are we going to remove this from 78 articles - I hope not manually? Is it possible to delete the file, let bots remove the broken links, and upload it under another name so as to use it at International Ski Federation? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a easy near-automated task for an AWB user; I can't immediately access right now but its readily doable. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the image from all of the articles except International Ski Federation per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. My edit sums included a link to this discussion for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a easy near-automated task for an AWB user; I can't immediately access right now but its readily doable. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. How are we going to remove this from 78 articles - I hope not manually? Is it possible to delete the file, let bots remove the broken links, and upload it under another name so as to use it at International Ski Federation? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:39, 21 August 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.
Image was deleted per WP:F9 apparently re-uploaded and then deleted once again per WP:F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 14 October 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.
Image could easily be recreated. — foxj 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Webcam shot from Depot Tower, which has a reachable cupola where similar pic could be taken freely. I don't know what the access policies are for that, but NFCC just wants a free alternative to be "possible" which it clearly is. Additionally, the picture's use in the article seems illustrative and not the subject of critical analysis or commentary. Crow Caw 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the quality of that image is pretty bad. That should be replaced even if there is no free alternative, which I doubt.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Webcam shot from Depot Tower, which has a reachable cupola where similar pic could be taken freely. I don't know what the access policies are for that, but NFCC just wants a free alternative to be "possible" which it clearly is. Additionally, the picture's use in the article seems illustrative and not the subject of critical analysis or commentary. Crow Caw 23:45, 3 October 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 has been removed from Florida Gators football per discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 14 October 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.
Use in Florida Gators football is 100% decorative. I removed an invalid rationale and removed the image, but the uploader re-added, so rather than get in an edit war over policy, bringing here for more eyes. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Calling @MisterCake:'s attention to this discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine to revert it to your edit given the rationale. However, I am curious as to the policy concerning fair use in more than a single article. I also would not consider it merely decorative, as he was the school's 2nd All American, but I understand how one could. It took them 20+ years to get their first and 20+ for the next, the latter being LaPradd. Cake (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily about the number of articles, but about the purpose of the image. Typically, it's easy to justify the use of a non-free image when the purpose is to identify the subject of an article. However, when it's being used to illustrate an article on a broader subject, there usually needs to be a pretty compelling reason that the image is needed to further the reader's understanding. To me, on Florida Gators football, this image doesn't really meet the WP:NFCC especially as there are many free images of former players which serve to illustrate the article in a more "decorative" way. If LaPradd's physical appearance was particularly notable for some reason that was relevant to understanding something about the program as a whole, that's the kind of thing we'd look for to justify that usage. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine to revert it to your edit given the rationale. However, I am curious as to the policy concerning fair use in more than a single article. I also would not consider it merely decorative, as he was the school's 2nd All American, but I understand how one could. It took them 20+ years to get their first and 20+ for the next, the latter being LaPradd. Cake (talk) 18:26, 5 October 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.
Consensus is to remove the photo. --Brustopher (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
- 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.
Image is used in infobox of D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation. It has a nfur for the article, but it's use appears to be more decorative than contextual. There doesn't seem to be anyway of verifying who the people in the photo are and there is no real discussion of them by name in the article itself. Does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 12 June 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.
- 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.
Source given for this image is not good enough, as it does not allow someone to find it. An earlier version of this file was uploaded at File:Tlc poster.jpg by User:Moulko00. That image was deleted as part of a mass removal. One of the other images uploaded by that same user (File:UFC 185 poster.jpg) was noted on Moulko00's user page with a note saying " Why are we using the image that you created". So this image may well be an fan-created image rather than an official WWE image. Tabercil (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- A quick reverse google image search does appear to verify this poster (and similar ones with other wrestlers and other layout arrangements with the same design elements) appear to be legit works. But that said, a direct link to a page with the image of some official capacity should be included and that onus is on the user or those that want to keep it. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can find a version of this image as appearing to be a legit poster - I found an Ebay auction here for a "DOLPH ZIGGLER WWE 2014 TLC PPV Pay Per View Poster 27x40" where there's a picture showing it's an existing physical item. There's no "And Stairs" addendum blurb to it though... Tabercil (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Odd, though checking on other materials from that series, the "and stairs" part is still a legit thing (eg dvd cover). But yeah, really there needs to be a stronger link to show that legit. There might be other posters with publication history we can trace since I don't think the Dolph one was the only one I saw when searching. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can find a version of this image as appearing to be a legit poster - I found an Ebay auction here for a "DOLPH ZIGGLER WWE 2014 TLC PPV Pay Per View Poster 27x40" where there's a picture showing it's an existing physical item. There's no "And Stairs" addendum blurb to it though... Tabercil (talk) 19:34, 3 October 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.
- 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 file original enough to be copyrighted? My impression is that it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Borderline. It's not used in any articles anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 13 October 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.
Non-free image of living person deleted as replaceable. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:01, 17 October 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.
No reason to use non-free file for a living person. XXN, 12:31, 15 October 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.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does not add anything of value to the article. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:04, 17 October 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.
Image deleted at FFD. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 22 October 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.
Image has a non-free rationale for TRU-SPEC and is being used as the primary means of identification for the sister brand TRU-SPEC#5IVE STAR GEAR. Rationale claims image is being used at top of article as primary means of identification which is not true. Can the image still be used since it identifies a particular brand discussed in a section of the article? -Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the image is not being used in appropriate manner in line with logo use - if the sister branding is not notable enough for its own article, we don't need a logo that is not discussed to see that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- File nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:5iveStarwiki.jpg. All are welcome to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 13 October 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.
Not copyrightable; license is now PD-Logo since it's a logo from an US group. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 22 October 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 former logo being used in a gallery which is not allowed per WP:NFG. Just wondering if this is simple enough to qualify as {{PD-logo}}. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it should fall under PD-USOnly (the "W" are clearly the same glyph, as opposed to artistic drawing). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 16 September 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.
License changed to PD-Logo. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 22 October 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.
Image has non-free use rationale that appears to be OK, but I am wondering if this can be changed to "PD-logo" since it is essentially nothing but text. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should be okay as PD-logo, the coloration effect does not contribute here. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 16 September 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.
License changed to PD-Logo. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 22 October 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.
Former logo of American radio station KMAX-FM. Seems more like {{PD-logo}} than non-free since it is essentially just text, but just want to make sure that the black outlining of the white letters is not copyrightable. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the black outlining would not make it eligible for copyright. Simple Photoshop-type effects like outlining, drop shadows, etc, are generally not considered as creative. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 29 September 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.
License changed to PD-Logo. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 22 October 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.
Logo for American radio station WJFD-FM doesn't seem to be anything more than text in a fancy font. Pretty sure this should be "PD-logo" instead of "non-free". -Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 2 October 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.
Image too simple for copyright - thus, PD-Logo and tagged for move to Commons. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 22 October 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.
Logo of American radio station WENJ. Are the two sound wave symbols after"FM" considered artistic enough for copyright? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 2 October 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.
License changed to PD-USOnly as precautionary measure in case it is copyrightable in the Philippines. It is not copyrightable in the US, per discussion here. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 22 October 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.
Logo for AmericanFilipino radio station DZOK. Seems to be simple text and thus "PD-logo", but I'm not entirely sure about the overlapping and shading of the "OK". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC);[Posted edited by Marchjuly to correct error is station's location - 01:17, 8 October 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.
License changed to PD-USOnly. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 22 October 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.
Logo of American radio station WABD. Seems acceptable as "PD-logo". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 2 October 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.
License changed to PD-USOnly. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 22 October 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.
Logo for Australian radio station Snow FM which seems OK as at least "PD-USonly" and possibly even "PD-logo". The circular shape is pretty utilitarian and the color scheme seems fairly generic. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the gradient effect is rather simple, so would be PD-USonly. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 2 October 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.
Image removed from event article. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 22 October 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 the biography and the event article. Which use does not violate fair use limits? George Ho (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Use on the person is in NFC allowances, and thus fails on the event article. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 2 October 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.
License is PD-USonly. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 22 October 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 logo being used on Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme). I believe this is simple enough for {{PD-USonly}}, but not sure about {{PD-logo}} because it is for British TV program. Would this still be protected under the UK's TOO? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 5 October 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.