Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 59

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 55 ← Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 → Archive 65

File:Afar Woman, Traditional Sharpened Teeth.jpg

That is the first criterion (WP:NFCC#1), not the second criterion (WP:NFCC#2). Solved by tagging the file with {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

This fails the second fair-use criterion, "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Presumably there are other Afari who could be photographed, if in fact there are no other extant suitable images. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Vox (song)

Closing this review. --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I was encouraged to use only one image. However, I'm torn between using either Canadian or American cover art. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is more an editorial issue than an NFCR (you're acting responsibly from an NFC side). You may want other advice towards that, but my impression is that we nearly always use the first version cover for identification if there's a choice. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The article has been infrequently edited for years. I don't know whom to speak with. This shouldn't bother me. McLachlan is Canadian, but I don't know whether the song hit the charts when it was first released on airwaves. Typically, if a cover art has a face of a singer or band, I should always stick to an edition from the country where a singer or band member was born in or has been a citizen of. For example, I switched cover art of "Material Girl" from European edition to American edition. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:11, 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.


File:Bill, the Killer from "Too Many Cooks".jpg

DELETED AS "ORPHANED":

--George Ho (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I initially tagged this as a disputed non-free image, as it appeared to fail WP:NFCC#8 since there's no sourced discussion of this image in the article. The uploader reverted with the comment, "Several sources in the article Too Many Cooks (short) discuss the killer as a central figure in the film. The concern has already been addressed" but as far as I can tell, there is no contextual significance for the screenshot. I'm guessing many of the multitude of stock characters introduced in the opening credits are brutally murdered by a homicidal maniac with a machete, who then proceeds to cook and eat them is supposed to be that commentary?

I believe File:Bryan Cranston as Walter White in "Felina", the series finale of "Breaking Bad".jpg suffers from the same issue, as the article doesn't refer to the image in the screenshot and there doesn't seem to be contextual significance to the image. Mosmof (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe "sourced discussion" means that the sources discuss the characters, which they do. I will be more than happy to fish out the quotes upon request, but so can anyone with a computer. As for the Cranston image, I also explained the rationale on the upload form - his look is drastically different in that episode than anywhere else, and is an integral part of his character development. Naturally, that is also discussed in the sources provided in the article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Side note: I was not notified of this discussion, and Mosmof only tagged one image while bringing both to the noticeboard. This is unethical at best. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, here's the disconnect—when WP:NFCC#8 talks about "contextual significance", it's not talking about what's in the image, but the image itself. Think of it this way—seeing Van Gough's "Sunflowers" is essential to discussing the painting, but not necessarily for discussing sunflowers in general.
For the Too Many Cooks, the screengrab isn't essential to understanding that the short takes a dark, surreal turn—it's explained in the text. For Breaking Bad, sure, there's a link to critical responses to the episode, but there's no reference to Cranston's appearance or his acting in the article, so there's no contextual significance. So you're right, the characters are discussed, but that's not what NFCC#8 is about—it's about whether the images are discussed.
Edited: I realized I didn't leave a link to this discussion in Chunk5Darth's user talk page. I thought Twinkle did that automatically, but somehow it didn't. I apologize—that was an honest mistake, not lack of ethics. Mosmof (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Uhm... how exactly do you expect anyone to discuss a screenshot? It's not an artwork by itself. It is expected that the sources would discuss whatever is depicted in the screenshot, which they do - in both cases. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Notice how the caption for the Cranston image reads "Critics praised Bryan Cranston's performance in 'Felina'." The image is that of Bryan Cranston's performance in "Felina". The previous image was a shaven, smiling Cranston at a Comic Con. Is that self explanatory enough? Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
how exactly do you expect anyone to discuss a screenshot'
That's basically the point—it's not being discussed. Actually, there are times when a screenshot might be in discussion, where a particular scene might be talked about. But this isn't the case. A common mistake is to use a non-free image to show a picture of something that's talked about. But fair use only applies to a case where the picture, rather than what's depicted, is talked about. A fair use image is not a visual aid. It's the very object of discussion.
As for the Cranston photo, I'm not seeing a discussion specifically about his appearance in the text. There's not much contextual significance since there's no context there. Mosmof (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is WP:COMMON sense: the contextual importance of the Cranston image is the cited criticality appraisal of his performance in said episode, accompanied by an image of his performance in said episode. Expecting a discussion of a screenshot as a separate work of art is unrealistically WP:POINTY. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What you're describing is a visual accompaniment, not a critical commentary of an image. Mosmof (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"Not critical" is highly subjective. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, and that's why we're having a discussion. But it might make sense if you think about it this way - if you removed the images, would the text that's left make sense? Without the Bill the Killer screenshot, the reader still understands that a homicidal maniac takes over the show. Likewise with "Felina", readers see that critics praised the episode. In neither case is the visual essential, as opposed to merely helpful or relevant, to understanding the text.
Now, what's not subjective is whether the image is itself a subject of commentary, and I don't think you can reasonably claim that the image itself is being discussed in either article. The screenshots are merely illustrating the topics of discussion. Mosmof (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC).
Again, screenshots are never works of art on their own accord. The answer is whether the scene, which the screenshot depicts, is subject of discussion. The killer is pretty much the center of discussion in a good portion of the sources in Too Many Cooks (short), and Cranston's acting is discussed in a good portion of the sources in Felina (Breaking Bad). The image of a smiling, shaven Cranston at a Comic-Con barely did any good in the context, but the current image helps the reader understand the depth of Cranston's final transformation as the dying White (as opposed to the initial first couple of seasons White, or the ruthless Heisenberg). The creepy smiling face of Bill helps the reader understand the development of his character, going from just being partially, almost accidentally, seen in the background, to slashing characters and dominating the imaginary show by enacting their scenes. Both are subject to sourced discussion. I believe the reader's understanding of the characters and their influence on the article subject will not be the same without these images. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
A few things:
  • An image doesn't have to be a work of art to be discussed - that's kind of a red herring here.
  • Again, yes, the killer is discussed. How he looks is not.
  • Neither the "…depth of Cranston's final transformation as the dying White" nor his appearance is explicitly discussed in the article. This might actually be useful in the Walter White character article to show the character's evolution, but I'm having trouble seeing how the screenshot helps the reader understand Cranston's acting.
  • Absent any sourced commentary about Cranston's appearance, the claim that the screenshot is essential to understanding the text (which doesn't mention his acting or appearance, by the way), would appear to be WP:OR.
I can see scenarios where these images would be helpful, even essential, to understanding the topics discussed, but not as these articles are written right now. Mosmof (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above. There is no critical commentary about the visual look of the killer that is necessary to have a visual image of him in the article. The directing/filming that has the short go from relatively benign to horror-cliche is something that easily is described in text and does not need an image, to the degree I've seen in sources for the short. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Goddess Pattini.jpeg

DELETED AS "REPLACEABLE":

--George Ho (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I have used the above painting file (with unknown copy-right status) of goddess Pattini to illustrate her in the wikipedia article. Does it falls in to unacceptable use of non free content that violate WP:NFC ? -- ShehanW talk 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image violates "No free equivalent". A picture of the goddess "could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A photo of a sculpture of the goddess can be created OR a picture of the goddess can be painted and uploaded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Redtigerxyz: I would like to know the policy you follow to remove this specific image from the article. And I don't trust your word, unless you point out the specific Wikipedia guideline that states images of goddesses cannot be used in English wikipedia under fair use. -- ShehanW talk 05:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The point about NFC policy here is that if we are talking about a religious figure, there are bound to be many examples of previously painted/drawn art in the historical aspects of the religion that would be far out of copyright. We should be only using free imagery of such figures. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem in this case is the rarity of such free and clear previously painted Sri lankan divine figures. The fair use template I have used in the file suggests that it can be used under the claim "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Unless you are an highly talented artist, it is difficult to create a new file which will adequately depict the goddess similar to the one used here. Therfore I believe this file qualifies as WP:FAIRUSE to use in en wikipedia. --ShehanW talk 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's not a correct interpretation of NFCC. Maybe you are not talented enough to produce such an image but some artist, somewhere in the world, could make such an image, so however difficult it may be, it is possible to replace this one. Therefore it fails WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Platzkart website logo.png

DELETED AS "ORPHANED":

--George Ho (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

This file is a non-free image used in only one article (DeviantArt), to illustrate commentary that is, itself WP:OR and seems to exist only for the purpose of illustrating the similarity between it and the new DeviantArt logo. That's WP:SYNTH, and as such, I don't believe this qualifies under the fair use rationale. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Platzkart logo may be PD-USonly (its very simple), so it could be included -- however, you are correct that the present comparison to the logo is not sourced, and while I see the issue in sourcing, it is only sourcable to blog/SPS sources, which means we can't source it at all, so either way it should be removed, though the image can be retagged as free. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You say it "may be" PD in the US. I don't have a lot of experience determining copyrights here, do you have any advice on how I could determine that? It seems to be a logo used by a Russian business, which (to my way of thinking) should mean it's protected here in the US, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The relevant statutes are American laws, since Wikipedia files are stored in US servers. The threshold of originality is pretty high in the US - File:Best Western logo.svg is considered the benchmark for a "simple" image around here, and the Platzkart logo seems way simpler than that. Mosmof (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and for the purposes of hosting the file, we would consider the image "free" as a too-simple-for-copyright image in the US, but nowhere else, meaning it can't be uploaded to Commons since it likely is not free in countries that use a more stricter threshold of originality (such as the UK). --MASEM (t) 21:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I'll go swap templates on the file. I appreciate the help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just keep in mind, as you posted, its still OR with the lack of reliable sourcing to say that people are comparing the logo to dA's new logo, and while free, shouldn't be included unless that point can be backed by a reliable source. But there's no need to remove the file at all, it will just be a en.wiki free image orphan, which is okay to have. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite well aware of that. I've erased the info once, and reverted an edit that tried to add the website of this image and a forum post as sources. Another editor has taken to reverting my edits, so I have a feeling that it will end up in WP:DRN before it gets excised from the article. Feel free to come along and blow it out yourself, the only reason I don't do so again is because I don't want to be in an edit war. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:ScottPageAutograph.jpg

DELETED AS "ORPHANED":

--George Ho (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

It is indisputable that the album cover is copyrighted and without a fair use rationale needs to be deleted post haste. Additionally, I cannot conceive of any use for the autograph of a living person that would outweigh our duty to protect that person' s privacy. What does a signature illustrate about a person? John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the signature alone is typically something that fails copyrightability, though the UK is not one of those countries- we'd still treat the signature alone as "free" on en.wiki but can't be uploaded to commons. (See COM:SIG). But yes, the autograph copy of an album cover is inappropriate for non-free (the base cover image is non-free for sure). --MASEM (t) 04:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon and MASEM: This is 1987atomheartbrother. My wife is the photographer who took the picture of this album cover with the autograph on our CD; I uploaded the file on Wikipedia. Of course the album is copyrighted: no one is arguing it is not which is precisely why the effort was made to make sure it's (a) a portion of the album cover on which the signature is on and that (b) it is low resolution, i.e., it is precisely because the actual work on the cover is copyrighted that the file is uploaded with those specific limitations. I guess the discussion comes across to me as though it assumes negligence or bad faith on the part of editors that made an effort to contribute the file. Can someone please explain how this is different from the following files? See below:
AUTOGRAPHS: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=autograph&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
This Boby Marley autograph, on a part of an album cover as well (literally the exact same type of file): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Marley%27s_autograph_on_LP_Rastaman_Vibration_1978.jpg
Jeff Porcaro autograph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeff_Procaro_sig.jpg
Rich Barbieri autograph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quiet_life_rb_copy.jpg
Steve Jansen autograph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Jansen_autograph_Quiet_Life_(1980).jpg
David Sylvian autograph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_sylvian_autograph_quiet_life_(1980).jpg
Rob Dean autograph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rob_Dean_autograph_quiet_life_(1980).jpg
The Bob Marley autograph is used in at least three Wikipedia articles, including this one: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley. Does the person the article is about have to be deceased in order for the autograph to be used on their Wikipedia article? If so, why are there so many other autographs on Wikimedia Commons if they can't be used?
Which part of these use rationales does it not fit:
Description = Autographed album cover of A Momentary Lapse of Reason (the file is a low resolution crop of the autographed portion of said album cover).
Source = Derived from a digital capture (a photograph) of the album cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the publisher or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.
Article = Scott Page
Portion = Upper left corner of the front of the album cover. A small portion of the commercial product and no portions of any other sides of said album cover / product.
Low resolution = Yes
Purpose = The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (the album A Momentary Lapse of Reason) and the artist's (Scott Page's) autograph. It illustrates the article subject's (Scott Page's) participation in the band Pink Floyd and specifically on this studio album; it also shows the subject's (Scott Page's) autograph.
Replaceability = There is no free equivalent of this book cover, so the image cannot be replaced by a free image.
Other information = The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album.
Scott Page plays on the album, his autograph is a collectible item just like any other celebrity's, and the use of this file will not affect the value of the original work or interfere with copyright holders' distribution capabilities of the original item. The picture, as it is, is worthless to anyone that would want to make nefarious use of any of the copyrighted material. It illustrates an important album the artist played on and it boasts his autograph, which is procured by fans, autograph collectors, etc. It's not the autograph of a private individual - this is a public figure.
The upload was made in good faith, following the stipulations that apply to files that are impossible to use for any sort of pirated material: low resolution, a portion of the cover. It's the upper right hand corner of the cover, not the entire cover, etc. Here's where I disagree with what is being discussed: I am lucky that I saw this discussion. I find that too often, in Wikipedia, where there should be discussion, there isn't (things are done before there is enough discussion) and there certainly doesn't seem to be much effort to reach the original editors to try and find a collaborative way to leverage the sweat equity they are putting into the effort.
So, yes, it is precisely because the cover itself is copyrighted material that it is uploaded in a way that renders it useless for piracy. The signatures of artists are used on Wikipedia articles such as the Bob Marley and Jeff Porcaro articles, in addition to quite a few more. People collect signatures from these celebrities. Their autographs become a distinctive part of their "branding" and their "uniqueness." Here's my question: if the signature can be isolated (like the Porcaro signature) can the file be re-uploaded if it doesn't show ANY trace of the cover without problem? Even then - how does the Bob Marley file survive this scrutiny? It's practically the exact same thing as the Scott Page file we are debating here. If someone could explain why the Marley file is kosher but the Page one isn't, I will have learned something I am certainly not understanding so far.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to stress: I'm honestly trying to learn something each time I make a contribution here. I just wish some of the discussions were not as dismissive (not saying this one has been) and that editors would try to work toward resolutions that make every effort to preserve the integrity of work done in good faith - so I hope to get some good feedback to make this work to the extent possible.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The basic question is what encyclopedic purpose does the signature serve in an article? IMHO for a "celebrity", the answer is absolutely none, and the same goes for the vast majority of the signatures on Wikipedia and Commons. Wikipedia is not a site for collecting autographs, it's an encyclopedia. Now, obviously a case can be made for the signatures of important historical figures like Lincoln, John Hancock, the signers of the US Declaration of Independence etc, other heads of state. But celebrities, even seminal figures like Marley? I remain to be convinced.--ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


(edit conflict) I appreciate you are new and trying to learn, so let me teach you a couple things here.
  1. Wikipedia is entire staffed by volunteers just like yourself. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do know from experience that many if not most active editors share this viewpoint: Be concise! Please read the essay WP:TLDR.
  2. en.wikipedia, which is what this is, and Wikipedia Commons are two separate organizations with separate administrations and policies. What is kosher on Commons may not be kosher here and viz versa.
That being said, let me get a bit verbose. Copyright (and copyleft, believe it or not) is probably the most confusing thing to learn about Wikipedia, so don't beat yourself up. I was at one time a professional photographer and additionally have worked in management for professional musicians, so I have had some amount of practical experience with it, but it till confuses the heck outta me. Since most of the policies on copyright here are in the nature of protective of the Wikimedia Foundation, I have found for me the best plan is to just memorize what I need to know and not really worry about understanding it. IMO, the actual file in question here needs to be deleted immediately as there is no foreseeable fair use for it. The album cover is unambiguously copyrighted, and there is already an unadulterated copy of it in place in the only foreseeable location it can be given a fair use exception. The autograph is pretty much a moot point, and that is what you are wanting to use it for. If you could cut the autograph off the album cover, as Masem told you above you can upload it here as it isn't copyrightable under the laws of most countries including the US. Since our servers are in the US, that is what is of primary importance. You wouldn't have to obliterate all traces of the album cover either--as long as the background cannot be identified as the album cover that it is you are good to go. However, IMO, I do not see a use for it. You correctly noted above the reason...he is living, and we have an affirmative duty to protect his privacy. Autographing a record album is one thing; reproducing that signature on one of the most widely read websites in the world is quite another. Of course this is subject to debate and discussion; this just isn't the forum for it. An article talk page where you were going to use the image, or the talk page at the image's file page would be. However, that is all crystal gazing, because such a file does not exist as of now.
My suggestion would be to put the file page in question up for speedy deletion , reason G7, author requesting deletion and then work on creating an image of the signature alone. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that I'm not sure if the Bob Marley signature is appropriate for commons (too much of the cover art is shown there to qualify for de minimus), and I've nominated it for deletion there. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
ukexpat, John from Idegon, MASEM: I've removed the image from the article: if I can delete the file I uploaded I will do that too but if it's required for an editor that patrols these to do it, I'll leave it alone (or anyone can do it for that matter - the point is I am not ignoring it now on purpose or anything). In my defense, much of the text I wrote that made my entry in this thread look long were the links to the autographs on Commons and the series of questions that are presented to justify use of the image. Here's what I appreciate: the responses here sound collaborative. I think Wikipedia has become difficult for many people that have *something* to contribute to it because, unfortunately, most responses in these discussions don't come across like this. On the file: I may still consider extracting the autograph as Masem suggested. As a music fan, someone who writes about music, and someone with an accidental autograph collection of sorts I think it's part of that artist's branding and image. Quite often, an artist's autograph is different in that artistic context than in their personal, legal affairs. But I will reserve that discussion for the right space. The main point is, many of us learn from seeing what works. Sometimes some items don't get patrolled as aggressively, I suppose, so it's easy to see that as the applicable context or paradigm. I understand this is all volunteer work that that this is why it's difficult to apply the standards evenly, consistently. It's the "gotcha" attitude I've encountered in other situations that makes it frustrating sometimes because I don't think most new editors are trying to get away with something nefarious. I just wish there was more dialog like THIS when dealing with editors who are acting in good faith. I appreciate the feedback given here and the way it was given for this reason.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:George Zimmerman American flag painting.jpg

IMAGE OKAY:

--George Ho (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I placed this in a section of the George Zimmerman biography. Would omitting this painting affect the readers' ability to understand his satire on the American flag? George Ho (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the painting is a representative example of the text describing his paintings, it's commentary attached to it, so should be fine to understand the criticism about it. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So the image is okay? If so, I'll close this review. --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I declined speedy deletion on this. The reason given on the non-free content rationales was that the building was not yet completed. The building was completed in the fall of 2014, so at the very least, the rationales need to be updated. It is also possible that a free alternative now exists. Safiel (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is completed, we can take a free picture of it, so it automatically fails NFCC#1 - it doesn't matter if there's no existing picture out there, it is the possibility if a picture can be taken, and the exterior of a building on a public campus would certainly qualify (at minimum under US law). --MASEM (t) 19:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
There are free pictures https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Goldring%20Centre%20for%20High%20Performance&sort=relevance&license=4%2C5 Now - Do something about it!!!! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A free image is available on Commons as File:Goldring-Centre-for-High-Performance-Sport-in-Toronto.jpg --Elegie (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The speedy tag by Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) was invalid; the file should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}} instead, for deletion in two days. When something is claimed to violate WP:NFCC#1, the uploader is given two days to protest. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the available free images, I have tagged for delayed speedy deletion under CSD F7. Safiel (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Stone Rise.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lily Pads.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Captain Cajun's Ferryboat.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Shelter Rock.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Stone Cold Caves.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Pizza Pass.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Allergic Cliffs.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Main Map.png

Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Screenshot of copyrighted software EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ida10-1.jpg

This should be listed at WP:PUF to double check. The use as non-free is probably correct if it has to go that way, though this will affect many article pages. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Apparently no permission by the painter, at least it isn't mentioned. The GFDL tag therefore might be invalid. Rosenzweig (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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


University of Sydney logos follow-up

Only one of the images is now in use. No further discussion since November 2014. TLSuda (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Select a file to keep

As announced above, we should only have one non-free logo represent the University of Sydney in its article. File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png is only being used for articles about departments of U Sydney and will be removed from these pages per the discussion above. That means that one of these two images will become orphaned and will be deleted within 7 days from now, so we need to decided which one should be kept. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Use File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png because the image is clearer and conveniently includes the name and the coat of arms. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) with its portrait format it will integrate better into the infobox than File:Usyd new logo.png which has a landscape orientation. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • User:De728631: As you added {{subst:archive top}} to a section under the same level two header, this section will soon be archived by the archiving bot. This seems unintentional. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing this out. I though the bot would wait since there was still an open sub-section, but I have now split this discussion off the previous debate. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The Monster (song)

There is now only one song recording in the article. Article has been like this for some time. There is no further need for discussion. TLSuda (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is zero mention of the "Monster Under My Bed" clip in the article, so there's no contextual significance for that clip. The other clip is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the article. There is a whole section about Bebe Rexha's involvement in the songwriting which includes an image caption "The song, 'Monster Under My Bed,' written by Bebe Rexha, was originally intended to be used on her own debut album. The chorus was later used for 'The Monster'." So I think there is sufficient contextual coverage for this clip too. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg

Consensus is the correct one is File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg and the other should be deleted. No consensus on use in Emblems of Indian states article. TLSuda (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 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) 12:17, 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.


File:Grey's Anatomy Season One DVD Cover (cropped).jpg

Appears to have been dealt with. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

This page violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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


File:Logitech Unifying receiver.jpg

Easily replaceable. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Seems very easily replaceable. No reason was provided as to why this is not replaceable with free media, and I can't think of any myself. Sancho 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got one of these sitting 3 feet away from me. Tagged appropriately. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Cairo banner.svg

Original file is CC SA 1.0 licensed, see archived text file. --GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

If the information at c:File:Cairo banner 1.svg is correct, then this is a free file. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. --evrik (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Where is it stated that this has been released under the given license? I don't see that information at the websites linked from the file page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (as CC licensed). After some archive digging here is an archived version of the mentioned COPYING-file [1]. The license looks OK - I have copied the link into the Commons image page. GermanJoe (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Without further objections, I fixed en-Wiki file information and licensing. While the source website was not 100% archived, the information is sufficient to gather the CC situation. GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Fluxring.jpg

Deleted as clear NFCC violation. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Image owned by the manufacturer as shown in description. Unknown author. Fails WP:NFCCP#1: Products are not limited or historical, or no longer manufactured. Any owner of these products can take the same images. Article contains excessive images, and advert-like material. So delete per WP:FUC.--Otterathome (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Otterathome (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted as per CSD:F7 case 1 — spurious fair use tag. It was marked as historical image. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


DELETE SECOND IMAGE --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

So High (Ghost Loft song)

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 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.



Magda Olivero

Remove from all but main article --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I removed the Youtube link to the filmed recording of the subject's rendition of "vissi d'arte". However, the edit was reverted because of PD claims. I wonder if the removal was justified under copyright law of Italy Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the External Links noticeboard, but a quick answer is that if the original work is copyrighted and the YouTube uploader is not the copyright owner, then we should not be linking to the copyright violation. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Umbrella (song)

Already removed from article --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

There are way too many pictures from the music video. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion in the article to support one image, but not 5. Certainly not the first, or the last two, but I dont know if the other two are good either to showcase what is described in the text save for the one about applying silver makeup. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 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.



Runaway (The Corrs song)

Already removed from article --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Two music video screenshots are used. Do proses of music videos replace them? George Ho (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no critical discussion of the videos (outside describing what they show) that require the use of non-free over, say, a free picture of the band or just prose. Both are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 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.



File:William Van Der Hagen, Drogheda, 1718.jpg

Changed to {{PD-art}} --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Not sure why a painting from 1718 is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that motion. Is there any reason to believe it is in fact not in public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The UK National Gallery might think so, but we've got the backing of the Foundation that any unmodified, 2D slavish copies (read: scans or photographs) of 2D PD art will be PD. So this should be PD. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It has no rationale for Willem Van der Hagen anyway, so best to move it to Commons as PD-art. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to scroll down my watchlist and I clicked the rollback button. bd2412 T 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Absolutely a free image, regardless of the National Portrait Galleries claims to UK law.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



File:Vivanta Hotels.png

Changed to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the Republic of [[India]]}}--Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this copyrightable in the United States? It violates WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be PD in the US, likely not in countries like UK, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the United States copyright office would likely refuse registration of this work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)

Delete Second Image --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

There is more than one album cover. Shall there be one or two album covers? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been arguments presented by the Album wikiproject when a second album cover is allowed, generally for a major release in a different region. I am not sure their take on special editors/reprints with new art, but I don't think its necessary here. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 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.


File:Forrest Mars, Sr.jpg

Solved by adding {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Image of living person. Fair usage is not allowed. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Per some discussion, and a Google look at other images, this is indeed Jr. (as noted on the file page) who is alive, and thus the image is ineligible for fair use. The webpage the image was sourced from is incorrect. Reventtalk 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dorothy Fuldheim

This was archived without being closed. It seems that the files have been deleted, so there is probably nothing left to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (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.

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Taney model box.jpg

File has been deleted. CSD F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Taney model box.jpg is a scanned or photographed top of a box of a Revell model ship. Uploader claims it to be PD-self, but it appears to be a non-free image to me, but perhaps I am mistaken. Could someone review this and confirm that this is acceptable as PD or non-free use? It is currently being used in galleries on Ship model and Revell, but does not appear to be critical to the pages. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The uploader's last edit was Feb 2007 so finding out additional information is not likely. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seriously, seriously doubt this is free. Likely uninformed editor. I'd re-tag as non-free, and see if it really belongs anywhere with NFCC in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks. I can not think of a fair use rationale that would justify having the box art of one specific model on the pages Ship model and Revell so I orphaned the file and changed it deletable orphan fair use. There doesn't seem to be an educational use unless there is a specific article about that particular model ship. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Sonic youth dirty promo photo 1992.jpg

Solved by tagging the file with {{subst:rfu}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

There are free media of Sonic Youth: c:Category:Sonic_Youth. There is no need for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the free images of the band would work for this. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:UCF Seal.svg

Removed from everywhere but Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. The image on the building is not a valid replacement per Stefan2's explanation. --B (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually it should not even be shown in Pegasus (mascot) because there is a freely-licensed replacement. The depiction of the logo in the latter image is covered by freedom of panorama for buildings in the US.The seal though would fail WP:NFCC#1 in this article. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hm, would a logo on a building really work? Most companies and many other organisations have a copy of the logo printed on its main office, so this would affect a large number of logos on Wikipedia. There was a case where a statue was considered to be a part of a building (and therefore covered by the building's FOP), but I believe that you should apply a separability criterion and determine if the logo can be separated from the building. You may also have to show that the building was completed on or after 1 December 1990. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the logo in File:UCF Burnett Honors College.jpg is a case of de minimis since the image is obviously intended to show the entire wing of the building and does not focus on the logo. And according to Commons, "for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans." So I guess this image a lucky shot indeed because it serves two purposes: it depicts the college's building and happens to include the university's logo. De728631 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
De minimis means that the copyrighted work is irrelevant to the image. If an image is used in an article for the purpose of displaying a copyrighted work seen somewhere on the picture, then de minimis can't be applied with regard to the use in that article, even if de minimis might apply with regard to the use of the same image in a completely different context.
"Full FOP" means that there is no copyright for architectural works completed before 1 December 1990, but there is no special provision in the copyright law which allows you to take photographs of works completed before 1 December 1990. Works other than architectural works, such as logos, are subject to copyright protection even if the building was completed before 1 December 1990.
Recent buildings are subject to copyright protection as architectural works. However, there is also freedom of panorama for such buildings, provided that the building is visible from a public place. As some buildings (very few of them) aren't visible from public a public place, this is a somewhat limit FOP and therefore not full FOP. In Leicester v. Warner Brothers, a court ruled that certain sculptures which are affixed to a copyrighted building are considered to be a part of the copyrighted building, and FOP therefore applies to those sculptures. The law which enabled copyright protection and freedom of panorama explicitly applies only to buildings completed on 1 December 1990 or later, and therefore you can't use the FOP loophole with regard to sculptures, logos or other works affixed to buildings completed before 1 December 1990. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

Somehow archived without being closed. Now relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))
To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 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.

File:Olympiakos4.svg

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

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 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.


What Can I Do? (The Corrs song)

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

There are too many album covers in this article. Also, the logo shouldn't be here. The logo was deleted from some other articles by User:TLSuda after another discussion was closed, but after that, it was added to this article without any FUR. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, all but the first cover are inappropriate uses, the logo being outright flagrant violation. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 10 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.


Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)

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 album cover. Shall there be one or two album covers? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been arguments presented by the Album wikiproject when a second album cover is allowed, generally for a major release in a different region. I am not sure their take on special editors/reprints with new art, but I don't think its necessary here. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 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.


File:This Is How We Do MTV Scrrenshoot.jpg

Deleted --B (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This does not provide any rationale as to how this passes the non-free content criteria. And it does not at present. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an unnecessary illustration that does nothing to help understanding the section about the music video. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 21 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.


Crooks in Cloisters

Deleted - fair use images are not allowed in galleries. --B (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This article only needs one poster. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The article already has a poster in its infobox. This image is in a gallery and does not have critical commentary failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. Aspects (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Fabergé egg

I checked and all of the fair use images are gone from the article. --B (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

An editor has been adding a large number of non-free images of Fabergé eggs, pasting each both into the dedicated article about each of these artworks and in the main Fabergé egg article, where they are used in a list table. Problems are as follows:

  1. While the sculptural artwork as such is presumably free, the photographs are not.
  2. FURs on the file page currently describe only the use in the dedicated articles; FURs for the main article are missing
  3. The use in the main article falls foul of WP:NFTABLE
  4. FURs don't address the question of replaceability of the photographic work; in particular, we can't use non-free photos if the eggs are on public display and could be photographed there, or if the photographer may have a commercial interest in the photo. The only scenario where a non-free picture would seem legitimate would be if it was made available by the owner (collector, museum etc) of the piece, and the owner is known not to permit photography otherwise.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

to 1 Yes, therefore fair use.
to 2 I didn't know that each particular use needs a FUR.
to 3 Ok, tables too, i didn't think that an overview also falls in that guideline.
to 4 That's a very tight commentary, a FUR is only valid if the owner enclosed its artwork?

--Ras67 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We can easily meet WP:N for each individual egg. We can, and with enough effort available, should have articles on each egg.
Of the many sins against NFC carried out on WP, I would suggest that admins instead focus on its more egregious breaches. Perhaps starting with the case where a non-free image so clearly non-free that national media have picked up on the story, where the photographer has suffered clear financial loss as a result of WP's actions and where Commons has ignored COM:PRP to do so. An image where an admin has even chosen to gloat with WP's sovereign power over mere photographers by using it as the highlight of their user page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody has been attempting to improve the FURs and address the issues I raised above, I have gone ahead and removed the non-free images from the main article, per WP:NFTABLE and WP:NFCC#10c failure. I have also tagged most of the image pages with "disputed rationale" (for the remaining usage in the dedicated articles on each egg), since none of the rationales address the crucial question why a free photograph could no longer be taken. In cases where the eggs are apparently in public museums, I have instead tagged them straight away as replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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


Brandenburger SC Süd 05

Removed duplicate copy of the logo --B (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This article has too many non-free logos. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Second logo is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG

Removed from List of passports. --B (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:NFG in List of passports. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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


File:Beige.jpg

The image that was at this title has been deleted and there is now a Commons image showing through. Closing discussion. --B (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this copyrightable? I'm not sure about the background... Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just simply geometric and gradients. Should be okay. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  Note: I've requested that it be renamed to File:Beige Arrogant Worms.jpg to avoid a conflict with the file on Wikimedia Commons. Please refer to this new name after the renaming. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment- are names this short not blacklisted? If not, then they should be.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Paparazzi - Music video - Crutches scene.jpg

Was kept at IFD, closing this discussion --B (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails (8) of WP:NFCC, contextual significance. There is no critical commentary about this particular item, I don't think it particularly enhances the reader's understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It has commentary regarding the image, in the synopsis section. I'm trying to understand what it is exactly that you are looking for. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between commentary and critical commentary. Commentary is illustration, for instance "red cars exist". Critical commentary is more along the lines of "this particular red car is notable".
Quoting from WP:NFCC: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
This particular image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the song, and is frankly entirely replaceable by the caption "Gaga uses crutches in the video". This means that the image fails the fair use criterion. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:LG & B telephone MV 02.jpg

Was kept at IFD, closing this discussion --B (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails (8) of WP:NFCC, contextual significance. There is no critical commentary about this particular item, I don't think it particularly enhances the reader's understanding to see that the two singers are in a car. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It has, regarding the usage of the truck from Kill Bill and the fashion choices. Same as before, please let me know what it is that you are looking for. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between commentary and critical commentary. Commentary is illustration, for instance "red cars exist". Critical commentary is more along the lines of "this particular red car is notable".
Quoting from WP:NFCC: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
This particular image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the song, or indeed of the video. While it is worthy of note that they include Kill Bill references, readers' understanding is not increased by seeing the duo in the car. It might be increased by a photo of the car, but I would imagine that, in principle, you could get a free image of the pussy wagon, which makes this image replaceable. This means that the image fails the fair use criterion. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:GagaYuyi.jpg

Was kept at IFD, closing this discussion --B (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not convinced that this image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, nor that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, thus failing NFCC#8. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As this only is used in one article, consider using WP:FFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that this was an appropriate forum for discussing non-free content, and that if found lacking it would be deleted if not in use anywhere else. I can use FFD in future if you think that more appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Basically, this board should be for actions that should not normally involve an admin action to close, so the question of a single image with a single use either means it will be kept or deleted, so the FFD board is better for that; most of the actions here are for images with multiple uses or where one page has many images. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ah. Should I move all my nominations to FFD then? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes that's what you should have done firstly. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Taken to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_November_19#Lady_Gaga_vidcaps -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


List of Presidents of Afghanistan

Removed image of Mohammed Omar from the list. The others are (or at least purport to be) public domain or under acceptable licenses. --B (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, non-free images need to be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Manhattan Vingboons 1639.jpg

Image has been retagged, closing --B (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Why is a map from 1639 unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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


File:Carpenters (Carpenters album).jpg

The issue has been resolved --B (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this copyrightable? If so, then it should be tagged with {{non-free reduce}} and {{subst:orfurrev}}. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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


File:SAU Athletics logo.png

Apparently archived but never closed. Solved by relisting the file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:SAU Athletics logo.png.

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

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 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) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_59&oldid=1142590792"