 | 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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
.png){kind=link}
Consensus is to remove the seals per WP:NFCC & WP:NFTABLE. TLSuda (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFTABLE. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, no need to see the seals of the various corps/divisions in the table. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, in this case. The tables are simple and have little content and seem to almost be made to show the non free badges/seals.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doesn't look copyrightable. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, essentially just letters and lines. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image is {{PD-textlogo}}. TLSuda (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think so. Typefaces except for the vertical line and the 'A', which together probably don't push above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see that A as possibly having enough originality as it seems to be an eagle with clawed feet...but again, it is so simple it could be consider geometric shapes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The "A" stands out but it is too simple a design to be considered original. Green Giant (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see that A as possibly having enough originality as it seems to be an eagle with clawed feet...but again, it is so simple it could be consider geometric shapes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is that there is currently not enough information to show whether the image is copyrightable. Therefore best course of action is to keep non-free. TLSuda (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Probably...not sure. Could be simple typeface and geometric shapes but it is a little small to tell if there is any real design elements in it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Without the 'handwriting' style letters almost certainly ineligible for US copyright in my opinion. If the handwriting is regarded as an artistic element, that might push it above TOO as I don't think the writing could be considered de minimis on this cover. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image is only acceptable in Murder of Milly Dowler. TLSuda (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Murder of Milly Dowler. Fails WP:NFCC#9. Potentially sourced to Press Association, but the source is unclear, so might violate WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Images of people almost never pass due to replaceable with a free image and I am not seeing any reason to see differently here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe this is a family photo which was provided to the press when she went missing, so unless there is evidence of a transfer of rights I think the copyright probably belongs to her parents. There will never be a free image unless her family decide to release more family photos of her. The photo is appropriate for the article about her murder but nowhere else. Green Giant (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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? Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Simple typefaces and geometric shapes. Not copyrightable.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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? Note that it is an SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good catch. No it is not. Use of a typefaces and geometric shapes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Where does the SVG come from? The comment suggests the SVG source is copyrighted and so this might be a violation of WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the summary states that the original file was not an SVG and that the uploader had to convert it using adobe photshop: "The image was originally provided in EPS form, but was converted to SVG using Adobe Illustrator 10.". So the vector art is copyright of the uploader here on Wikipedia I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- EPS to SVG is a fundamental conversion akin to simple calculation or a strict 2D reproduction and thus you cannot claim copyright on the final work. The original logo is clearly PD-text and thus the final is PD-text. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could the SVG source be copyrighted by the uploader? I assumed copyright in the SVG source is independent of the copyright in the work, no. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- If they did a straight EPS (which is a human-readable machine language) to SVG (also a human-readable machine language) with a conversion tool from Illustrator, there's no way they can claim copyright on the source since they did no work at all. It is possible (however case law is not firm on this!) that the SVG code of an SVG file is a separate copyright from the image it produces, and if this was the case that the user created their own SVG file, they would need to make sure they put the SVG code as a free license even if the image it created was non-free. Here, because the initial logo is free, there is zero reason for use to have anything non-free related to this. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good question and good reply. I had not thought to check to see if the meta data could even tell whether this was done with automation or was a hand made SVG file. Excellent points for future reference! (if the meta data can show this)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- If they did a straight EPS (which is a human-readable machine language) to SVG (also a human-readable machine language) with a conversion tool from Illustrator, there's no way they can claim copyright on the source since they did no work at all. It is possible (however case law is not firm on this!) that the SVG code of an SVG file is a separate copyright from the image it produces, and if this was the case that the user created their own SVG file, they would need to make sure they put the SVG code as a free license even if the image it created was non-free. Here, because the initial logo is free, there is zero reason for use to have anything non-free related to this. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could the SVG source be copyrighted by the uploader? I assumed copyright in the SVG source is independent of the copyright in the work, no. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- EPS to SVG is a fundamental conversion akin to simple calculation or a strict 2D reproduction and thus you cannot claim copyright on the final work. The original logo is clearly PD-text and thus the final is PD-text. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the summary states that the original file was not an SVG and that the uploader had to convert it using adobe photshop: "The image was originally provided in EPS form, but was converted to SVG using Adobe Illustrator 10.". So the vector art is copyright of the uploader here on Wikipedia I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image is not discussed and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 criteria as not importance/relevance is provided. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- No discussion at all of the importance of the cover (the article already has a representative cover for use), remove. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image is not discussed and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 criteria as not importance/relevance is provided. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- No discussion at all of the importance of the cover (the article already has a representative cover for use), remove. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is only to be used at Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The file had been removed by me from 26th Field Artillery Regiment (Canada) here. It was restored by Kprtqrf06 without explanation, and more important, without providing a rationale here. Currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in six articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Remove from all but Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery; no rationale for the others and per logo use, wouldn't be appropriate in those articles as well --MASEM (t) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the 2004 remix cover is not necessary and would therefore fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is more than one cover for English version. George Ho (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Lauren Barnigan cover song would be notable on its own (though as per our convention cover songs are kept with the original save in unique cases), so this cover is fine. The cover of the other covered version is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the images, through alternative methods, can be replaced by free images therefore failing WP:NFCC#1. TLSuda (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In Nintendo Entertainment System, the image is used to illustrate the different visual appearance of unlicensed games. In this role, the image is replaceable by a free image with the non-free label blurred or blacked out. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, the usage in Wisdom Tree is problematic for the same reasons. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Further, the usage in Bible Adventures is problematic under WP:NFCC#3, the non-free cover art already appears in the article. To illustrate the different colors of cartridges, the label could be blacked out or blurred to create a free image, which can serve as a replacement under WP:NFCC#1.
Additionally, I nominate File:Bibleadv.gif since it has the same problems, in addition to a missing non-free use rationale in Bible Adventures. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Except...the artwork is indeed copyrightable, therefore just blurring the label would not make it a free image.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- To show bootlegged/unlicensed NES games which had radically different cards, a picture of the game mostly on it's side - the label still in shot but very askew, could be made and in that situation the cover art would be not a problem in a de minimus manner (the cart shape is not copyrighted), so a free image of this cart can be taken. Yes the cart is rare but not impossibly so. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is there is not enough information currently to ascertain the copyright status and therefore it is best to keep it as non-free. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Wittylama changed {{PD-US-no notice}} into {{Non-free 3D art}}. Unclear why. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- This image was taken in 2009. The PD tag was incorrectly places as it is trying to refer to the sculpture that is the subject of the image. I've been creating this article in the last couple of days List of works by Oldenburg and van Bruggen so I've been looking at all their artworks. I note that most of his public sculptures are located in the USA and all are still copyrighted. Therefore, Freedom of Panorama rules apply... Since the US doesn't have FoP for public art, this image needs to claim Fair Use to be used in the specific article about the sculpture that it represents - Clothespin (Oldenburg). If you look at the file page's history you'll see that it originally had a Fair Use rationale but it was lost along the way when a different version of the file was uploaded [1]
- I note that another, equivalent article, of a different sculpture by the same artist that is also in the USA uses Fair Use for its lead image (see Typewriter Eraser, Scale X). However the image in a third article Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks doesn't, and should. If you're ok with it, I'll change the license on that 'lipstick' to Fair Use too. Wittylama 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Clothespin-oldenberg.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Photographs of fixed art in the US are not covered by freedom of panorama. This was installed in 1976 so one has to prove that there was no copyright resigstered for the work to assure it has fallen out into PD. (If there was, it's copyright for 95 years from '76). So the switch to the non-free tag is proper until we can verify the lack of copyright notice. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The artist most certainly did claim copyright in the work (official website, for example) - and still does, aggressively so (see this successful DMCA takedown notice to the WMF). On the basis of your comment Masem I will also go ahead and place a Fair Use tag on File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg which is in exactly the same circumstances.
- Relatedly, you might be interested in a deletion notice I've just put on this image File:San Francisco - Rincon Park.jpg (and implied requested deletion for the other two similar images in the same category]] as it falls under the same FoP rules but has been put on Commons where non-free media is not allowed. I would appreciate your commenting there too. Wittylama 16:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Especially if lawyers for the original artist are fighting copyright claims, we should not presume just due to their installation dates and apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted. Better to play it safe with tagging non-free until we can clearly assert that they should be PD. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The clothespin sculpture has a copyright record from June 1976 (GP112935, see online database), the fair-use tag appears to be necessary here. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've now updated File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to have the same Fair Use rational - to illustrate the article about the artwork it features. As to your point that there is an "apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted", I don't know how the sculptor could assert their copyright any more strongly. What makes you think they have not? Wittylama 16:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would recommend adding that copyright registration number if we know it exists to the file page. (I do not know if we have a template for that and if we don't we should have one and encourage editors to use it for such works). --MASEM (t) 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It does not matter if copyright was registered or not. The only thing to find out is whether there was a copyright notice there before 1978. I assume that both User:Slowking4 and User:Missvain checked this before uploading the image. Additionally, there used to be a link to SIRIS which mentions no inscription, but User:Wittylama removed that link for some reason. If no inscription is mentioned in SIRIS, then there is usually none there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the notice was there when the sculpture was installed 1976 but was removed at some point after 1977, then the image is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because the route to show the slim chance this is free requires working very tightly within what is required in copyright law, and that we know that the agencies representing the copyright holder are legal hawks, then it is better for us to assume non-free unless we have the crystal clear evidence that it absolutely is in the public domain. It does not sound like we have this, so let's treat is as non-free. The image still can be used (the sculpture notable) but just limited pretty much to that page. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - the balance of probabilities strongly suggests that this this file is non-free even though there is an obscure reason why it might be possible that it is. Furthermore, as mentioned, the fact that lawyers representing the artist have previously (successfully) filed DMCA takedowns for other images on Commons means that the artist definitely cares about this topic. Using the consensus reached here I also changed File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to Fair Use (diff) as it an equivalent situation. However, Stefan2 reverted this change (diff) citing a debate about this image in 2013 which was seeking overt proof that the artist claimed copyright on the work. The decision back then was to leave the file as a free image, not a Fair Use one. I would like to challenge that decision and re-open the discussion. Can that be done here? Wittylama 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you dispute the previous PUF closure, consider starting a new PUF discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reading that PUF, I believe that was closed wrong. We are always to take the extremely careful route of not assuming free unless proof is given, and the fact whether there was a copyright notice installed alongside the work to start was never resolved in that discussion. The close to keep as free is inappropriate for our stance and how we treat other works. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've taken your advice Stefan2 and created a new PUF discussion for the lipstick image at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_August_28. Sincerely, Wittylama 14:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reading that PUF, I believe that was closed wrong. We are always to take the extremely careful route of not assuming free unless proof is given, and the fact whether there was a copyright notice installed alongside the work to start was never resolved in that discussion. The close to keep as free is inappropriate for our stance and how we treat other works. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you dispute the previous PUF closure, consider starting a new PUF discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - the balance of probabilities strongly suggests that this this file is non-free even though there is an obscure reason why it might be possible that it is. Furthermore, as mentioned, the fact that lawyers representing the artist have previously (successfully) filed DMCA takedowns for other images on Commons means that the artist definitely cares about this topic. Using the consensus reached here I also changed File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to Fair Use (diff) as it an equivalent situation. However, Stefan2 reverted this change (diff) citing a debate about this image in 2013 which was seeking overt proof that the artist claimed copyright on the work. The decision back then was to leave the file as a free image, not a Fair Use one. I would like to challenge that decision and re-open the discussion. Can that be done here? Wittylama 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because the route to show the slim chance this is free requires working very tightly within what is required in copyright law, and that we know that the agencies representing the copyright holder are legal hawks, then it is better for us to assume non-free unless we have the crystal clear evidence that it absolutely is in the public domain. It does not sound like we have this, so let's treat is as non-free. The image still can be used (the sculpture notable) but just limited pretty much to that page. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would recommend adding that copyright registration number if we know it exists to the file page. (I do not know if we have a template for that and if we don't we should have one and encourage editors to use it for such works). --MASEM (t) 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've now updated File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg to have the same Fair Use rational - to illustrate the article about the artwork it features. As to your point that there is an "apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted", I don't know how the sculptor could assert their copyright any more strongly. What makes you think they have not? Wittylama 16:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The clothespin sculpture has a copyright record from June 1976 (GP112935, see online database), the fair-use tag appears to be necessary here. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Especially if lawyers for the original artist are fighting copyright claims, we should not presume just due to their installation dates and apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted. Better to play it safe with tagging non-free until we can clearly assert that they should be PD. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys. I would suggest you leave it as a non-free use, but, I can't confirm the a copyright on this work as I live no where near Philadelphia and won't be there anytime soon and wasn't able to be "that close" to the work as I was in the past with other pieces. I'm not familiar with him copyrighting his work directly on each piece. Oldenburg did copyright all of his work, though, or at least, his estate claims it. We have been had hiccups with his works on Commons before, as you can see with this email between his estate and WMF [2]. However, 99.5% of the time SIRIS database and the SOS! evaluations DO mention it. I think we should ping User:RichardMcCoy, one of my public art colleagues about this if you are still concerned. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Free equivalent on commons - com:File:Henryk Szeryng (1964).jpg. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 17:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&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.
Consensus is the image should only be used on the Central Canada Hockey League article. TLSuda (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine on the make CCHJ page, and it might be okay on the one season page where the new logo was introduced, but not on the rest of the pages. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the image should only be included on the main article. TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Disney Channel. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Absolutely replaceable with a freely created map of the area and tagged appropriately; if needed, please ask the Graphics Lab for help. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does not meet NFCC#1, there is no reason to use a non-free image when a free image can be easily created by an editor using freely available libre and gratis content. Furthermore, for an image that is 3,756 × 2,787 pixels large and sized at 18.6MB, this is hardly "minimal use" as required by NFCC#3. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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.
Page from a manga being used as a "convenience" illustration at Yakuza. Fails "no free equivalent" and "contextual significance" criteria. TiC (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, don't see the need to show this on the Yakuza page. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 think this image fails WP:NFCC#1 ("No free equivalent") because a free version can be created and replace this image. jonkerz ♠talk 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This image was originally used on the Ashkenazi Jews article. According to the page of the image, it is believed that the use of this work:
- To illustrate the subject in question
- Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
- On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. According to these conditions, the copyright policies are not broken. Is it OK to use her because there's uncertainty about this. Khazar (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- We have plenty of free images of other famous people that classify into that article; while I will no doubt agree that Anne Frank is also one of the more predominate names in there, we don't need her image when we have so many free examples already, and hence why it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm asking. Don't avoid the question and answer what I'm asking. Does her use on that page qualify as fair use? I provided reasonable arguments that it does. Khazar (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it does not, because as already explained, the only rationale which would make it fair use "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" clearly does not apply. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Khazar, are you asking about "fair use" or Wikipedia policy? It might qualify as fair use on some other site, but that is irrelevant on Wikipedia. The use certainly does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy because free equivalents are available that would "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Wikipedia policy is intentionally more stringent than U.S. fair use law. —teb728 t c 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it does not, because as already explained, the only rationale which would make it fair use "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" clearly does not apply. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm asking. Don't avoid the question and answer what I'm asking. Does her use on that page qualify as fair use? I provided reasonable arguments that it does. Khazar (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy for non-free images is much stricter then fair-use, so generally you can only use such a non-free image to identify the person in the infobox of their own article, if they are deceased, or in an article where there is specific commentary about the image itself, not the subject of the image. Neither of these would qualify this image for use in Ashkenazi Jews. It is just another image of an Ashkenazi Jew but is not-free. For the NFCC reasons given above it has been removed. ww2censor (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
{{resolved}} ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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.
Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails WP:NFCCP point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- As the uploader, I agree, please remove it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 clearly fails the criteria for a valid fair use claim. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"
The image is on an article about the fictional character "Olivia Pope". There's a separate article on the TV series Scandal (TV series). So to have an "encyclopedic purpose" the image would have to tell us something about the character which cannot be conveyed in words or with a free image. That would have to be "what the character looks like". However, we have a valid free image of the actress Kerry Washington see File:Kerry Washington Django avp.jpg. The character does not differ in appearance from the actress - has no significant costume, or makeup. Therefore there's nothing educational here that cannot be portrayed with putting the actresses's image with the caption "Kerry Washington, who portrays Olivia Pope". And indeed that's what was on the article until this image was very recently uploaded. It adds nothing. Scott Mac 21:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has been argued in the past that if a live-action character is notable, a single non-free image can be used to show what that character looks like assuming that the image is capturing the poise and style that that actor presents the character as, which a free image of just the actor cannot directly convey. I don't think the poster image here is the best choice, but a single non-free would be generally allowed here. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think any one of us should be the arbiter of what image captures the poise and style of that character. Whatever ABC uses as their promotional image should be what we go with. That is pretty plain and simple. As Masem has stated, there is a long-established custom of allowing a single non-free image. Quite often the promotional poster is the image that is used on WP. I am the main author of five other characters from currently running television shows: Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Piper Chapman, Crazy Eyes (character) and Selina Meyers. I have chosen to go with promotional artwork (posters and DVD covers) in all cases. I think this is much better than us choosing a screencap from our own taste. In this case, if you google image Olivia Pope Scandal poster, there is basically a chose between the profile and the frontal of her head only. I am perfectly willing to swap out the current image for a frontal promotional image from the network. I don't think we should get into choosing how to depict her from among various screencaps, but if that is preferred let me know. There are certainly many screencap images that arise from the aforementioned google image search.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I didn't know what image to go with for Claire Underwood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think any one of us should be the arbiter of what image captures the poise and style of that character. Whatever ABC uses as their promotional image should be what we go with. That is pretty plain and simple. As Masem has stated, there is a long-established custom of allowing a single non-free image. Quite often the promotional poster is the image that is used on WP. I am the main author of five other characters from currently running television shows: Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Piper Chapman, Crazy Eyes (character) and Selina Meyers. I have chosen to go with promotional artwork (posters and DVD covers) in all cases. I think this is much better than us choosing a screencap from our own taste. In this case, if you google image Olivia Pope Scandal poster, there is basically a chose between the profile and the frontal of her head only. I am perfectly willing to swap out the current image for a frontal promotional image from the network. I don't think we should get into choosing how to depict her from among various screencaps, but if that is preferred let me know. There are certainly many screencap images that arise from the aforementioned google image search.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand that if there's no free image that can convey the same information. Here there is. So whatever has "been argued" I'd like to know how this can meet the strict criteria in this particular instance.--Scott Mac 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- This particular image, no, it fails, due to being more a show promo piece. On the other hand, someone might replace that with this image [3] which removes the promo stuff. We would allow this as this image carries a poise and attitude associated with the character that cannot be readily created by a free image (we cannot expect someone to stop a celeb on the street, dress as the character in question and then drop into the character role). Note: this is from consensus in the past on character images, one I don't agree with but found best difficult to convinence otherwise). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have never been told to avert the promotional text in the chosen image. Is that general policy? If so, shouldn't we crop her image from a promotional image rather than make our own choice on which screen cap to choose?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The optimal choice of a character image should be one provided by the show that just shows the character (for example Twelfth Doctor's image is a promo shot provided by the BBC). Most shows today still provide these. If there is only promo material that has text or the like, cropping that out is fine - the image here in question this would be a bad choice because it is just her face in profile and gives very little. Just scanning around for Olivia Pope, however, I see several possible promo images floating around from ABC, so one of those should be used. Only if there is no promo image, then pulling an image from a screenshot can be done with the care of editors to chose one that all believe is representative of that character. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- How do I know which ones are from ABC other than the ones with text for the show name and the network logo on them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Many sites that cover entertainment will include photo credits. You can also go to the show's page on the broadcaster's website which usually will have files and media kits. (eg like here : [4] for this specific case. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh! Photo credits! Bingo! I'll swap in this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Scott MacDonald can you slap a {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my new image is satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. It is certainly not resolved. I can see no justification for a non-free image here. This is a free encyclopedia - there are criteria and they need to be strictly applied. There needs to be a high "no alternative" bar to non-free images. It is not met here.--Scott Mac 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried to push for one, but consensus disagrees; they feel live action characters need a shot of a notable character on that's characters page despite the arguments that free images the actors in costume could be free replacements, because of the poise and attitude aspect. I think we could be better but can't convince people of that, so we go with allowing one non-free character image for identification. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need to "push" for a high bar. The bar IS high on non-free content. The high bar is a meta:Foundation Issue not subject to consensus. It just has to be applied.--Scott Mac 09:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried to push for one, but consensus disagrees; they feel live action characters need a shot of a notable character on that's characters page despite the arguments that free images the actors in costume could be free replacements, because of the poise and attitude aspect. I think we could be better but can't convince people of that, so we go with allowing one non-free character image for identification. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. It is certainly not resolved. I can see no justification for a non-free image here. This is a free encyclopedia - there are criteria and they need to be strictly applied. There needs to be a high "no alternative" bar to non-free images. It is not met here.--Scott Mac 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Scott MacDonald can you slap a {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my new image is satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh! Photo credits! Bingo! I'll swap in this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Many sites that cover entertainment will include photo credits. You can also go to the show's page on the broadcaster's website which usually will have files and media kits. (eg like here : [4] for this specific case. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- How do I know which ones are from ABC other than the ones with text for the show name and the network logo on them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The optimal choice of a character image should be one provided by the show that just shows the character (for example Twelfth Doctor's image is a promo shot provided by the BBC). Most shows today still provide these. If there is only promo material that has text or the like, cropping that out is fine - the image here in question this would be a bad choice because it is just her face in profile and gives very little. Just scanning around for Olivia Pope, however, I see several possible promo images floating around from ABC, so one of those should be used. Only if there is no promo image, then pulling an image from a screenshot can be done with the care of editors to chose one that all believe is representative of that character. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have never been told to avert the promotional text in the chosen image. Is that general policy? If so, shouldn't we crop her image from a promotional image rather than make our own choice on which screen cap to choose?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- This particular image, no, it fails, due to being more a show promo piece. On the other hand, someone might replace that with this image [3] which removes the promo stuff. We would allow this as this image carries a poise and attitude associated with the character that cannot be readily created by a free image (we cannot expect someone to stop a celeb on the street, dress as the character in question and then drop into the character role). Note: this is from consensus in the past on character images, one I don't agree with but found best difficult to convinence otherwise). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
![[3]](http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110915035014/scandal/images/9/93/Olivia_Pope_02.jpg){kind=link}
To be clear, if we allow that a non-free image can be used, even when there's a free image of the character, simply to capture "the poise and style", we open the door to almost any fair use claim. And we are not respecting the principle of being a free encyclopedia with certain educational exceptions. If the character had distinctive dress or costume, I'd understand. But "poise"? That will vary through the show. What's next "shade of lipstick"? We do need to judge on a case-by-case basis, but we also need to err on the side of *free* and set a fairly high bar.--Scott Mac 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that this is an issue that deals with NFCC#1 (nearly objective) and #8 (subjective). If it were the case we were talking this picture being used on Kerry Washington's page to identify her, that would be a very simple, very straightforward NFCC#1 failure, and that would be removed without discussion. But when you are talking a character, the argue put forth is that the poise and attitude are elements that a free image can't capture, and these are parts that need to be seen in context of a notable article on that character (#8). As that is a subjective call, we cannot just use NFC to remove the image (Otherwise we will be back to the days of BetaCommand where everyone was against harsh implementation of NFC). There has to be discussion, and in the past when there has been discussion about these images, consensus favors keeping them. I do want to stress that this is not opening doors, because the use is only being justified in one situation: when the character is notable enough to have their own standalone page, and this only justifies one single image for that page. As long as we are allowing cover art in the same manner, this is not an unreasonable consensus. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deleted based on Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_September_11#File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg. TLSuda (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image was deleted at commons for lack of evidence of permission. My limited understanding of WP:NFC#UUI makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use? Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion this image is a violation of both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. While the mugshot itself is the subject of commentary in Indictment of Rick Perry#Mugshot photo, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.- MrX 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is nothing about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like a NOT#NEWS improper split. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- To add, while there is discussion of the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the focus) and would be a free image. (For example, this free image File:Trayvon_Martin_shooting_protest_2012_Shankbone_11.JPG includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- MrX 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years. He has a pretty good public campaign going on right now dismissing the indictment and this mugshot photo is an important aspect of his perspective. There are an overwhelming number of sources connecting his mugshot to his feelings about the indictment and his mugshot is unique. To try to explain in words his appearance and how it represents his feelings would be inadequate.--v/r - TP 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- MrX 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for information purposes, an email (ticket:2014082810013198) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? Green Giant (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the sheriffs office photos are priced at $0.00 - so this photo is unlikely to ever be freely-licensed. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Wikipedia for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Wikipedia thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a free encyclopedia if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article about the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair use images are not free content for a free encyclopedia, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say smugshot, is a matter of widespread commentary in reliable sources.- MrX 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair use images are not free content for a free encyclopedia, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The image is not "iconic" or of "historical importance", but there is commentary about the image. Is that commentary sufficient to overcome copyright and BLP concerns? Not in my opinion, but others certainly disagree. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Going by sources not presently in the article, I can follow the line of the term "Smugshot" to describe exactly how he looks in that photo, and how it relates to how he is taking this otherwise serious charge; these are sources that are now there as opposed to when this NFCR was first opened. As such, as long as sourcing beyond what is there presently (about the viral nature of the image) specifically about how people see Perry's attitude towards this charge, then this should be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had meant to add those sources a week ago - but it's been a tough week at work and I just got over a head cold.--v/r - TP 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it should be okay (by my assessment, that is) as long as you get these in at some point, and make sure the rationale for use is focused on how people have called this a "smugshot" to show what I mentioned that have come up during this week. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, I just helped by increasing the rationale strength on the image page. You'll still need to add the sourcing for the article, but I am in no doubt they exist. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just so much ado about nothing; and the fact that the mugshot image was removed from Commons represents nothing more than a sad win for the POV pushers over common sense and the law. In Texas, there is something called the "Public Information Act" which: "applies to information of every “governmental body.” “Governmental body” is defined in section 552.003(1)(A) of the Government Code to mean: (see page 7):
- (i) a board, commission, department, committee, institution, agency, or office that is
- within or is created by the executive or legislative branch of state government and
- that is directed by one or more elected or appointed members;
- (ii) a county commissioners court in the state;
- (iii) a municipal governing body in the state;
- (iv) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and that is classified
- as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or municipality"
The mugshot image is the public record. It was released, for public use, by the local agency which released it. Therefore, the question isn't whether WP must obtain permission for it's use. That's a desperate reach; and little more than "reasonable sounding" nonsense. That legal question is already settled, given that the agency in question has already released its public record (the image).
The only plausible objection would be IF that agency had requested the withholding of it's release (see page 8). But again, as the agency has already self-released the image, that question is already answered. Any opposing argument would have to make the nonsensical (and unproven) claim that the local agency had voluntarily self-released the image - only to then appeal to the Attorney General to rule that it does not have to release the image - after it had already released it. Effectively, asking the AG to reverse time:
- The Public Information Act provides that a governmental body must request an Attorney General
- open records ruling if the governmental body wishes to withhold requested information unless
- there has been a previous determination about that particular information.
So no legal impediment whatsoever exists to WP using the image: either according to State of Texas law, or U.S. copyright law. That question is settled. Fair use doesn't even apply here, as the image is already entirely within the public domain and a public record not subject to copyright by an Texas, or federal, government agency. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between "public record" and "public domain", from the terms of a free license. Material on public record means that the public cannot be restricted from accessing the material but the state can still maintain copyright on that material. That is not the same as public domain, where the state has relinquished all copyrights on the material so that all users can use, share, and modify the work (as is the case in California). --MASEM (t) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is, of course, a clear distinction between "public record" and "public domain." However, your definition of "public domain," which you assert is when: "the state has relinquished all copyrights," is incorrect and misstates the legal principle. When certain government-produced work is excluded from copyright law, that is not the same as relinquishing its copyright. Something must first exist, before it can be relinquished. If it does not exist, it cannot be relinquished. Per the US Copyright Office: "A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. (Also:) Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner." This entirely comports with the response provided on the OTRS (ticket:2014082810013198): "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." That is the practical definition of public domain. The producing/releasing agency has explicitly stated that it has no interest in the re-use purposes of the released material. That is as clear a confirmation that this image is in the public domain as anyone could reasonably expect. X4n6 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- The PIA of Texas applies to copies of the works when requested, and only to the personal use of that copy, and as such, if the agency still holds a copyright on an item requested, then the copy remains copyrighted. In other words, it's not 100% public domain or free as we need it to be. Constrast this with California, that says all works produced by the government are immediately in the public domain (eg they cannot be copyrights). Per [5] In sum, Texas may be a state that requires specific statutory authority before copyright authority may be enforced, but it is possible that a court might find that the default rule applies, meaning that state works are generally copyrightable. In any event, where copyright has been authorized, disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act does not impede the ability of the agency to place use restrictions on the record consistent with the U.S. Copyright Act. So unless there is something in the criminal records side of the Texas law that puts all mug shots in the public domain, we have to assume this is a copyrighted photo. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those arguments and their conclusions are factually incorrect across the board. That link is just generic, reference info. It has no force of law and claims none. It also does not discuss any particular state laws, or even reference any. In fact, it even concedes: "some ambiguity regarding how copyright principles intersect with state access laws." The Texas PIA is the only state access law in play in Texas. But the claim, that the Texas PIA is only applicable for personal use requests, is provably false. As the Texas Attorney General's Office states: "the governmental body must be consistent in its treatment of all requestors." So in reality, the law specifically prohibits the kind of differentiation between private and public requestors that you claim it promotes. That claim is also illogical. As news agencies and others, routinely request, obtain, reproduce, reuse and re-release documents obtained per the Texas PIA. Whether the documents are originals or copies is irrelevant; as that has no bearing in copyright law. This was made very clear when the producing/issuing agency itself asserted no copyright claim in its release of the image; and further expressed its disinterest in any future disposition and reuse of the image it had released. So the problem for that argument: is that you cannot assume or assert a copyright claim; when the only agency that possibly could, has expressly declined to do so. That is likely, as has already been explained, because they realize there is no basis for a copyright claim they could legally assert. Moreover, under US Copyright law, the image would have had to have been released with a Notice of Copyright accompanying it, to assert or preserve any claim. No such Notice was attached. So the copyright argument has no standing. As without Notice, under Section 405(b), any user of the image: "incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice."
- The PIA of Texas applies to copies of the works when requested, and only to the personal use of that copy, and as such, if the agency still holds a copyright on an item requested, then the copy remains copyrighted. In other words, it's not 100% public domain or free as we need it to be. Constrast this with California, that says all works produced by the government are immediately in the public domain (eg they cannot be copyrights). Per [5] In sum, Texas may be a state that requires specific statutory authority before copyright authority may be enforced, but it is possible that a court might find that the default rule applies, meaning that state works are generally copyrightable. In any event, where copyright has been authorized, disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act does not impede the ability of the agency to place use restrictions on the record consistent with the U.S. Copyright Act. So unless there is something in the criminal records side of the Texas law that puts all mug shots in the public domain, we have to assume this is a copyrighted photo. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is, of course, a clear distinction between "public record" and "public domain." However, your definition of "public domain," which you assert is when: "the state has relinquished all copyrights," is incorrect and misstates the legal principle. When certain government-produced work is excluded from copyright law, that is not the same as relinquishing its copyright. Something must first exist, before it can be relinquished. If it does not exist, it cannot be relinquished. Per the US Copyright Office: "A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. (Also:) Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner." This entirely comports with the response provided on the OTRS (ticket:2014082810013198): "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." That is the practical definition of public domain. The producing/releasing agency has explicitly stated that it has no interest in the re-use purposes of the released material. That is as clear a confirmation that this image is in the public domain as anyone could reasonably expect. X4n6 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- So in the absence of any proof whatsoever of a copyright claim - and in the presence of overwhelming proof that there is no copyright claim - any suggestion that we must just "assume" a copyright: exposes itself as being simply specious and frivolous - with no basis in the law; facts; policy; practice; or for that matter, logic or reality. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's still talking about "requestors" so we're still talking about copies of works created by TX government, and that does not work for a free license, because they are still holding onto the copyright of the original work in a non-free manner. And you are 100% wrong about the copyright claim; per updated US law, any work created after 2002 is automatically assumed to have copyright - it doesn't need markings, it doesn't need registration. (see [6]). --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- So in the absence of any proof whatsoever of a copyright claim - and in the presence of overwhelming proof that there is no copyright claim - any suggestion that we must just "assume" a copyright: exposes itself as being simply specious and frivolous - with no basis in the law; facts; policy; practice; or for that matter, logic or reality. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is plain to see that you are one of those editors who tenaciously, albeit stubbornly, holds on to your positions long after all the evidence has clearly pointed to the opposing view. So be it. But that alone is not, or shouldn't be, sufficient to prevail in this case. I've given you more than ample citations documenting the reasons why your arguments have failed. From the Texas Attorney General's Office; to US Copyright law; to the Texas PIA statutes; to the written declaration / OTRS ticket already directly submitted to WP from the very agency that produced and released the image. That last one alone is, or certainly should be, definitive. But added to all the rest: it is both conclusive and definitive. While you have failed to meet your burden to overcome a single one of those proofs with any kind of opposing or evidence-based proofs whatsoever. So unless and until you are able to produce something beyond your own speculation; and what has been your record of misreading, misstating and misinterpreting, or just simply ignoring, the prevailing laws; there's really nothing more to add. If you have, what you believe is, concrete evidence found either in Texas or US Copyright law, that definitively supports your claims: then you certainly haven't produced it. But I invite you to do so now. Errant speculation time is over. In the absence of ANY contrary evidence, there is nothing more to argue here. So per the OTRS ticket which is already on file: this image is already and immediately available for use on this project. Whether you can successfully persuade enough editors to, like you, ignore the facts and reject it, is another story. But the legal question is already settled. There is no legal, rational, objective, or fact-based impediment to the use of this image on this project. Or anywhere else for that matter. X4n6 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see the ORTS so I don't know what it says or the situation it was issued under; if what is quoted here [7] is the contents of that ORTS, then no, that's nowhere close to the allowance you're claiming it says, as outlined by the admins replying there at commons who are experts at determining free licenses; but as that discussion points out, there might have been a followup message from the department that I can't see. Everything else out there points to the fact that Texas' PIA does not automatically release material into the public domain. I am trying to see if I can get what that ticket says specifically to see if they have specifically removed the implicit copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked you to provide some (any) proof that would legitimize your claim that this image is protected by copyright. But you've offered nothing. Instead, in the absence of anything tangible, now you'd like to "investigate" the OTRS? As your link shows, the Commons decision was based on an incomplete review. The OTRS says - which Commons didn't reference: "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." Nothing there suggests an "implicit copyright." Just the opposite. The final sentence explicitly contradicts your claim. The Texas agency, which produced/released the image, made no copyright claim. The Texas AG, the state's chief law enforcement agency, made no copyright claim. Both agencies - staffed by expert attorneys and even representing opposing political parties - have universal agreement. They've made no copyright claim. Universal: to everyone except you. In fact, Perry's PAC is using the image in a for-profit capacity! So if there is a copyright issue, don't you think this for-profit use would run afoul of that copyright? But all we hear is crickets. Still you persist: with nothing in support. If you are unable to provide any sources defending your claims - especially with all the sources that defeat it - then you don't need to change your mind. You just need to recuse yourself from this review. X4n6 (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- First, you are mistaken on US Copyright law. Per [8] "A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death." No markings or registration required. So this photo, clearly post 1978, has an automatic copyright.
- If that is the extent of the ORTS statement, then no, that does not put the work into the public domain. The department still owns their copyright on the original work. We require free works to be free of any copyright issues, and because the original can still be copyrighted, that doesn't work for us. They would need to specifically say something like in the body of WP:CONSENT, that they are letting that be licensed under a free license or putting it into the public domain. The fact that some people have chosen to profit off the photo is an issue between them and the department - the department could easily opt to sue them for that, but there's also fair use aspects that those people might be in the right. But that's not our issue. This image is not under a free license, and thus will be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- First, I am hardly mistaken about US Copyright law. I just quoted it and provided you the link. However, you have again misinterpreted that law. As it states that copyright is: "ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death" - How do you define either the author's life or death, when the author is not a person, but an agency? Once again you simply cherry-picked a section you thought supports you, with no thought to its practical implication or application. You would have done better to read the very first page of your own source, which says: "It is important to realize, however, that this circular contains only general information and that there are a number of exceptions to the principles outlined here." You could also have just read the introductory section on that first page: "There are several ways to investigate whether a work is under copyright protection and, if so, the facts of the copyright. These are the main ones: 1 Examine a copy of the work for such elements as a copyright notice, place and date of publication, author and publisher. If the work is a sound recording, examine the disc, tape, cartridge, or cassette in which the recorded sound is fixed, or the album cover, sleeve, or container in which the recording is sold." We did, and it didn't. "2 Search the Copyright Office catalogs and other records." We have searched other records. There is no record of a copyright anywhere. "3 Have the Copyright Office conduct a search for you." As you feel so strongly about this, you're more than welcome to do that at your expense. However, while you would have this continue ad nauseum it has gone on long enough and I'm putting an end to it. I have contacted all the prevailing authorities in Texas to get a final answer on whether or not the image is copyrighted. They are unanimous that it is not. So I am obtaining the requisite communications and sending them to OTRS. The image is public domain and will be properly declared so. We're done here. X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked you to provide some (any) proof that would legitimize your claim that this image is protected by copyright. But you've offered nothing. Instead, in the absence of anything tangible, now you'd like to "investigate" the OTRS? As your link shows, the Commons decision was based on an incomplete review. The OTRS says - which Commons didn't reference: "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." Nothing there suggests an "implicit copyright." Just the opposite. The final sentence explicitly contradicts your claim. The Texas agency, which produced/released the image, made no copyright claim. The Texas AG, the state's chief law enforcement agency, made no copyright claim. Both agencies - staffed by expert attorneys and even representing opposing political parties - have universal agreement. They've made no copyright claim. Universal: to everyone except you. In fact, Perry's PAC is using the image in a for-profit capacity! So if there is a copyright issue, don't you think this for-profit use would run afoul of that copyright? But all we hear is crickets. Still you persist: with nothing in support. If you are unable to provide any sources defending your claims - especially with all the sources that defeat it - then you don't need to change your mind. You just need to recuse yourself from this review. X4n6 (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see the ORTS so I don't know what it says or the situation it was issued under; if what is quoted here [7] is the contents of that ORTS, then no, that's nowhere close to the allowance you're claiming it says, as outlined by the admins replying there at commons who are experts at determining free licenses; but as that discussion points out, there might have been a followup message from the department that I can't see. Everything else out there points to the fact that Texas' PIA does not automatically release material into the public domain. I am trying to see if I can get what that ticket says specifically to see if they have specifically removed the implicit copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is plain to see that you are one of those editors who tenaciously, albeit stubbornly, holds on to your positions long after all the evidence has clearly pointed to the opposing view. So be it. But that alone is not, or shouldn't be, sufficient to prevail in this case. I've given you more than ample citations documenting the reasons why your arguments have failed. From the Texas Attorney General's Office; to US Copyright law; to the Texas PIA statutes; to the written declaration / OTRS ticket already directly submitted to WP from the very agency that produced and released the image. That last one alone is, or certainly should be, definitive. But added to all the rest: it is both conclusive and definitive. While you have failed to meet your burden to overcome a single one of those proofs with any kind of opposing or evidence-based proofs whatsoever. So unless and until you are able to produce something beyond your own speculation; and what has been your record of misreading, misstating and misinterpreting, or just simply ignoring, the prevailing laws; there's really nothing more to add. If you have, what you believe is, concrete evidence found either in Texas or US Copyright law, that definitively supports your claims: then you certainly haven't produced it. But I invite you to do so now. Errant speculation time is over. In the absence of ANY contrary evidence, there is nothing more to argue here. So per the OTRS ticket which is already on file: this image is already and immediately available for use on this project. Whether you can successfully persuade enough editors to, like you, ignore the facts and reject it, is another story. But the legal question is already settled. There is no legal, rational, objective, or fact-based impediment to the use of this image on this project. Or anywhere else for that matter. X4n6 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.ms.081914.jpg){kind=link}
X4n6 you conveniently left off the part of that law that completely contradicts your point. "For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." Works are automatically copyright, and no registration notice, or any other action is required to secure the copyright. Conversely, very specific affirmative actions are required to release a work into the public domain, or other free license, and those have not been done. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- And for the record, here is the law specifically stating that Texas (state) agency works are federally copyright[9]. Here is the state law specifically saying that COUNTY works may be copyright (and due to federal law, automatically are) [10] And here is the Travis county website, conveniently prominently displaying a copyright notice for their government work. [11]. The burden of proof lies with those who want to use a work to prove that it is freely usable, not those that know that copyright is automatically applied to almost everything except Federal government works, and that "released to the public" is not the same as "released to the public domain" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, what you claim I "conveniently left off" [sic], was omitted because it was not relevant. It only applies: "For works made for hire" - which this was not; "and for anonymous and pseudonymous work" - which this is not. Travis County is anything but fictitious. Also your other links demonstrate the same lack of understanding of the laws you cited. Regarding your first link, you conveniently ignored that the section only applies to "State Agency Web Sites". The image was released in tangible, non-electronic form as well, not just on the website. So that section does not apply. Your second link also suffers from the same lack of thorough review. You conveniently missed the 3rd word in the 1 sentence: "A county may...". "May" is not "shall." "May" is not "must." "May" is not "will." If a county "may" do something, then guess what? It just as likely "may not." No explicit mandate is implied. By the way, "and for the record," not everything on Texas state websites is copyright protected. As the Texas Attorney General's Office proves to you here and here. Finally, regarding your 3rd link; as I've already explained to you, having the Travis County website exhibit a copyright notice only applies to material appearing exclusively on the Travis County website. Further, some material reprinted there might already be copyrighted by someone else. However, as regards your burden of proof contention, you also conveniently ignored that I have already expressed the intent to provide OTRS with that proof. X4n6 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it does. If you are employed by a company and you create something for that company, that is a work for hire. So the person behind the mug shot camera here, an employee of the department, created that work for hitre. At this point, you are clearly in the wrong about copyright. There are experts on free licenese both here and on commons and we've all come to the same conclusion - this is a copyrighted work, which may be used under non-free terms if it meets the criteria, but will never be classified as a free work. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is your most transparent - and desperate - leap to date. Sworn officers generally process arrestees: which includes the intake process of booking, fingerprinting and photographing. Officers and staff are not paid, as you seem to believe, from some a la carte menu for every function they perform. Nor can they assert ownership of the photos, or other work product, they produce. So your claim that the photos are "for hire" is patently ridiculous. Wedding photographers are "for hire." Cops who shoot mugshots are not. As to your "experts", as you don't appear to be one of them, perhaps you should simply let the process function as it is designed to. Then we'll see. But what is of more immediate concern, is your clear disinterest in that proper process if the outcome is not to your predetermined liking. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in proper WP procedure. Your only interest, as you have repeatedly expressed, is just to exclude this image from this project - by any means necessary. You've launched every bizarre claim you could think of: largely based upon no law and supported by no logic; to reach your conclusion. That behavior is shameful. For an admin, it is the kind of behavior that leads to a review of that status. But in the interim, I recommend that you refresh yourself on NPOV. Then when those experts review the resubmitted OTRS, we'll all see where we stand. X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You've had several people tell you you are flat out wrong in your analysis of US copyright law. These are people, like myself, routinely involved in evaluating if images can be used freely or not. Further, you clearly missed the above where I said that there is now sufficient support to use this image under NFC allowances because of sourcing about the "Smugshot", so you're not assuming good faith by what people have told you. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- On top of everything else, I shouldn't also have to point out that 2 eds. - you and Gaijin42 - do not constitute "several people." As the 2 of you are the only eds. I have interacted with on this issue. But as I've also said, it really speaks volumes when you accuse me of being "flat out wrong" in my analysis of US copyright law when, between us: I am the only one who has actually quoted and linked to US copyright law. And Texas state law. AND received confirmation from the involved agencies in Texas; on the state and local level. So that attack strikes me as just petty and hypocritical. As to AGF, I only respond to statements and actions. No need to assume anything. Finally, despite the current support for the image, I'm still updating the OTRS. Just in case people are inclined to revisit the issue again later. Nothing more to say. But as I'm sure you want it, you're more than welcome to the last word. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You need to understand that your misreading of the copyright law is wrong, and interferes with how WP handing imagery and the like and can become disruptive. You linked to a subsection of copyright law that specifically talks about works (and specifically audio works) before the Berne Convention date, which this isn't. [12] is the copyright law that applies to all published works, and there's not a mention of any need to register or have markings on it, and this been a long established point that everyone else knows; in the US if you put something in a tangible medium, it is copyrighted unless you specifically put it to the public domain. You cannot continue to argue against that, that's flat out wrong. (And I speak for the others at commons that have also identified the work as a problem). --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- X4n6, if you are sending anything to OTRS about this issue, please add the ticket number 2014082810013198 in the subject line, so it doesn't become lost.
- With copyright it is always better to assume that images are unfree in the first instance and that all rights have been reserved. With this particular image the reply from the county official seemed pretty conclusive that it was not in the public domain but was made available to pretty much anybody that asked for it. Gaijin's link is also fairly strong evidence that the county holds copyright to all such images taken by their officials unless there is an explicit statement that something has been released to the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You need to understand that your misreading of the copyright law is wrong, and interferes with how WP handing imagery and the like and can become disruptive. You linked to a subsection of copyright law that specifically talks about works (and specifically audio works) before the Berne Convention date, which this isn't. [12] is the copyright law that applies to all published works, and there's not a mention of any need to register or have markings on it, and this been a long established point that everyone else knows; in the US if you put something in a tangible medium, it is copyrighted unless you specifically put it to the public domain. You cannot continue to argue against that, that's flat out wrong. (And I speak for the others at commons that have also identified the work as a problem). --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- On top of everything else, I shouldn't also have to point out that 2 eds. - you and Gaijin42 - do not constitute "several people." As the 2 of you are the only eds. I have interacted with on this issue. But as I've also said, it really speaks volumes when you accuse me of being "flat out wrong" in my analysis of US copyright law when, between us: I am the only one who has actually quoted and linked to US copyright law. And Texas state law. AND received confirmation from the involved agencies in Texas; on the state and local level. So that attack strikes me as just petty and hypocritical. As to AGF, I only respond to statements and actions. No need to assume anything. Finally, despite the current support for the image, I'm still updating the OTRS. Just in case people are inclined to revisit the issue again later. Nothing more to say. But as I'm sure you want it, you're more than welcome to the last word. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You've had several people tell you you are flat out wrong in your analysis of US copyright law. These are people, like myself, routinely involved in evaluating if images can be used freely or not. Further, you clearly missed the above where I said that there is now sufficient support to use this image under NFC allowances because of sourcing about the "Smugshot", so you're not assuming good faith by what people have told you. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is your most transparent - and desperate - leap to date. Sworn officers generally process arrestees: which includes the intake process of booking, fingerprinting and photographing. Officers and staff are not paid, as you seem to believe, from some a la carte menu for every function they perform. Nor can they assert ownership of the photos, or other work product, they produce. So your claim that the photos are "for hire" is patently ridiculous. Wedding photographers are "for hire." Cops who shoot mugshots are not. As to your "experts", as you don't appear to be one of them, perhaps you should simply let the process function as it is designed to. Then we'll see. But what is of more immediate concern, is your clear disinterest in that proper process if the outcome is not to your predetermined liking. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in proper WP procedure. Your only interest, as you have repeatedly expressed, is just to exclude this image from this project - by any means necessary. You've launched every bizarre claim you could think of: largely based upon no law and supported by no logic; to reach your conclusion. That behavior is shameful. For an admin, it is the kind of behavior that leads to a review of that status. But in the interim, I recommend that you refresh yourself on NPOV. Then when those experts review the resubmitted OTRS, we'll all see where we stand. X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is that image should only be used on main Vodafone article. TLSuda (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: [13] which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is to remove from 2013 Coca-Cola 600 per WP:NFC#UUI. TLSuda (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is only File:Viasatsport.png belongs in article per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 6#File:TFF Mothers Talk USA.jpg. TLSuda (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two covers; is the USA cover relevant? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, the US cover being just the wordmark part of the original cover. Fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 non-free images except for the main infobox one should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like this has been dealt with, but agreed that previous versions used excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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.
Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image should only be used on the main Disney Channel article per policy. TLSuda (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The review of the File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png (same logo used on the current File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png) have a problem. The logo meets the criteria WP:NFC#UUI §17 in the majority of "Disney Channel" articles like as Disney Channel, Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain), Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) and others (except on Disney Channel (Germany) and Disney Channel (Russia), who use other logos). --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's not true. Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) and the others are clearly sub-entities to Disney Channel. WP:NFC#UUI §17 tells that the logo of the parent entity (Disney Channel) shouldn't be used in the articles about the sub-entities (Disney Channel (Latin America), Disney Channel (Spain) et cetera). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it is as you say, File:DisneyChannel2010.png would have to be only on the "Disney Channel" article. That image is (or was) almost all of "Disney Channel" articles. In some cases, the logo could meet (i think) WP:NFCI §2 --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding WP:NFC. WP:NFCI §2 is about WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is about WP:NFCC#3a. All files must satisfy both WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and as this file doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3a in the country articles (per WP:NFC#UUI §17, it shouldn't be used in the country articles. [[WP:NFC#UUI] §17 was added to WP:NFC#UUI specifically with this kind of articles in mind. WP:NFC#UUI §17 is in fact very similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it is as you say, File:DisneyChannel2010.png would have to be only on the "Disney Channel" article. That image is (or was) almost all of "Disney Channel" articles. In some cases, the logo could meet (i think) WP:NFCI §2 --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 poster being used has a few issues. First, it has been clearly resized larger than the original which I believe violates minimum use. Also, the rationale is invalid. This was carelessly added to the article under fair use. I suggest it be deleted as I am removing it from the article to add a fair use rationale for the current poster correctly, following our non free content policy. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree - though to cause minimal disruption, the new version of the poster can be uploaded over this one and the rationale changed; as this is a notable show, that single poster is appropriate for an identifying image. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}}--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Same with File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg. OK, if I can override the file I will do so, but think we only need one poster so the other should be deleted. It is the same poster just doesn't say Spike TV.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have replaced File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg with the other poster with the valid rational and the proper attribution to the copyright holder. If I can locate the photographer I will add that as well. The "TV card is now orphaned as well as invalid.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg had a truly invalid rationale and the wrong license. I have removed all the incorrect information and the image is no longer being used.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.