Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 66

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

File:H2O logo from H2O.ai.png

Image re-tagged as PD-Text, which is clearly is, so this discussion is moot. --Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is being used in H2O.ai and H20 (software). It has a non-free use rationale for each article, but I am wondering if the use in the software article is appropriate. The same logo is used in company's stand alone article which is wikilinked from the software article's page. This NFCR discussion on the use of a company's non-free logo in one of its product's articles is similar and the consensus was that the image in question could not be used. Does the same reasoning apply here? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you linked to the wrong discussion? You linked to an article about a type of sauce (Sriracha) and then to a particular company's brand of that sauce. Obviously, using the company's property to illustrate the generic article would violate fair use. But no such misappropriation of the H2O logo is happening here. In particular, The H2O logo is not being used to illustrate a generic class of software, which would be an analogous misuse.
Both articles explain that H2O software was produced by 0xdata (now H2O.ai). To tighten the connection with its flagship project, 0xdata changed its name to H2O.ai in 2014. In other words, the software with its logo came first, and then the logo was applied also to the new company-name.
Finally the logo-guidelines state that the Trademark logo that consist of only a (short) string of letters is generally not subject to U.S. copyright, although it often is a trademark.
Dame Etna (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dame Etna: Thanks for the additional information. I also saw your post at Talk:H2O (software)#Non-free use of File:H2O logo from H2O.ai.png, but I am only going to reply here just to keep everything in one place. The link the the Sriracha sauce discussion was as intended. Part of that discussion touched on the use of the Huy Fong company's logo in the Hoy Fong's sriracha sauce article. My understanding from that discussion is that the non-free logo of Huy Fong Foods should not be used in the articles of any of it's products. This was reaffirmed in WP:NFCR#Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods). Also, I believe "fair use" and "non-free" are considered the same on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am just curious if the same rationale given for the sriracha sauce discussion applies to this image as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I am only asking for clarification regarding the images non-free use because the is the licensing you chose when you uploaded the image. If the logo is not covered under copyright, then I don't believe it needs a non-free use rationale at all and can be used in any article. If that's the case, then the image might be a candidate for moving to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded the logo for the software article with a fair-use rationale for only the software because the company article did not exist then. Wikipedia and Commons have misused art,[1] and so I would never upload the logo to Commons without outside review by a copyright expert, who could also warn us about trademark law. Certainly, I would never accept liabilities acquired as part of such a move. It is also good to show respect to artists, such as graphic designers. Dame Etna (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure which article was created first really matters. If the company rebranded itself and is now using the software's logo as their official logo, then I think that might mean that the non-free use rationale for the software article is no longer valid per WP:NFC#UUI. As for the choice of licensing, it seems strange to license something that is not under copyright as being non-free. Is it possible for us as editors to take a free image that is not copyrighted and decide to place restrictions on its use because we do not want Wikipedia to misuse the image? I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that the logo is either free or non-free. Anyway, I'm hoping someone else chimes in and is able to clarify this. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't even come close to the threshold of originality. Retag it {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}, problems solved. —Cryptic 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)

Questions resolved. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Would it be accpetable to use this image from the Huy Fong Foods official website (might want to turn the volume down when going to the website because there about a 10-second jingle that plays when the page loads) as a non-free image for the infobox of the Wikipedia article on the company's srirachia sauce? The labels on the bottles specifically say "Sriracha HOT Chili Sauce". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See previous discussion: [2]. Given the only copyrightable feature of the bottles is the logo from the Huy Fong foods, we shouldn't need the image that shows the logo. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. I was just curious if the wording "Sriracha HOT Chili Suace" was enough for the image to satisfy the "if the product had its own logo, that might be something, but that's not the case here" referred to in that previous discussion. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really - that's just wording change or the like, not really enough to see the requirement for an image. We'd want a major graphical element change, since we're talking visual branding. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I have some questions about a related image. This Commons image of the sauce was recently added to the article Siracha sauce and is use in a few other articles. Could the information on the back of the bottle be considered to be "part" of the logo and, therefore, also protected by copyright? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the non-english text is the same as the English text (ingredients, etc.) this is all procedural/required language and would not be protected, compared to a written creative work. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional clarifiction - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Ghengis Khan Mounted.jpg

Image deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The image is sourced to an image-sharing web-site and bears a dubious license rationale. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The image has been removed by an admin. Case closed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Sydney Skaife00.jpg

Problem solved. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 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:NFCC#9 on a fully protected page. Stefan2 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to a link instead; it was apparently a redlink at the time. —Cryptic 09:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ally_Carter.jpg

DELETED IN COMMONS:

George Ho (talk) 21:58, 14 June 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 to question the copyright status of this image file. The linked to permission page contains no information about reuse of content. I don't understand the puf template so I'm leaving this here so that someone with more experience and review the situation. I have not contacted the uploader. --168.215.131.150 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Outside of scope. That image is at Wikimedia Commons (where I have reported it as a copyvio). —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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


File:1380ESPN.png

The file has been deleted, so there is no point in keeping this section open. Any further disputes should take place on Commons where the image currently is hosted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 23 June 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 used in WBEL (AM)#Programming to illustrate former logo of radio station. Not sure if this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since use of the image seems to be more decorative than contextual since the image itself is not being discussed at all and the swtich in call letters seems the be more than adequately explained using text. - Marchjuly (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retag as {{PD-logo}}. This logo clearly fails to meet the threshold of originality and is therefore in the public domain. Thus, NFCC does not apply to usage of this image. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have moved the file to Commons. If the old revision also is {{PD-textlogo}}, then someone should undelete the revision and copy it to Commons using toollabs:magog/oldver.php, then delete everything on Wikipedia per WP:CSD#F8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:TheRoseCD1.jpg and File:TheRoseCD2.jpg

Images have been removed and deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:06, 4 July 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'm not sure why it's necessary to use both of these non-free files for the infobox in The Rose (song)#Westlife version. If an image is needed to enhance the reader's understanding, then a single image should be more than sufficient per WP:NFCC#3a, shouldn't it? I don't think any significant information is going to be lost and the reader's understanding affected in a negative way if either image is removed per WP:NFCC#8, but I am interested in hearing what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not seeing allowance for these covers here. They aren't the original song, and the cover song is not independently notable of the original. Add in that the covers are just band members and nothing abstract, and they really aren't needed. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Would it be fair to remove them per NFCC#8 or would it better to cite something else? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Would the same reasoning apply to File:The Rose Hothouse Flowers and Dubliners.jpg being used in The Rose (song)#The Dubliners version? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed all three images from the article per this discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ahrar al-Sham.jpg

Image has been deleted. TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image has a non-free use rationale for Ahrar ash-Sham, but there is essentially difference between the organization's logo and the free File:Flag of Ahrar ash-Sham.svg also being used in the article. No additional infomration is obtained from the logo so it seems to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Only one is needed since they are exactly the same. Also to note that the SVG is a user-created work of a non-free logo, so is not appropriate, we'd need the SVG to come from the group directly, or otherwise use a JPG/PNG. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears there are many SVG flag/logo images using a similar licensing rationale being used in many articles such as Syria Civil War, 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive, List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, etc. Pretty much all of these images were uploaded to Commons as own work. Are you suggesting such images should be removed from all of the Wikipedia articles they are being used? Is this something that should be discussed at WP:PUF? I assumed that since they were taken from Commons that they were OK. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Melbourne City FC Logo (2014–).png and File:Melbourne City FC.svg

One of the duplicate images has been deleted per this discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:08, 4 July 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.

Images appear to be identical except for their names and the formats used. The .png version was uploaded in September 2014 and the .svg version was uploaded in December 2014. Both images have a non-free use rationale for Melbourne City FC, but the .png was replaced by the .svg with this edit in December 2014. The .png version continued to be used in Melbourne City FC Youth until I removed it yesterday for not having the nfur required by WP:NFCC#10c. The .png version is now an orphan.
I have two questions about these images:

  1. Are two versions of essentially the same non-free image needed or should one be deleted?
  2. Would it be acceptable to add a non-free rationale for the youth team's article to whichever image remains or would No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI come into play?

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be the same image, so one should be deleted. The SVG is pulled from an official PDF of the FC so that should be used over the PNG. The Youth page does not need to have this logo as a UUI#17 issue. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. Just for reference, another editor has stated at Talk:Melbourne City FC Youth#Non-free use of File:Melbourne City FC Logo (2014–).png that UUI#17 doesn't really apply here because the two teams are not really separate entities, but are rather "different iterations" of the same entity. I'm not exactly sure if that makes a difference. Can the same logo be used in the youth team's article if it is actually the official logo of the youth team? -Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Qarshi University logo.jpg and File:Qarshi University.jpg

One of hte images has been removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:08, 4 July 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.

These images convey essentially the same information and are being used in the infobox of Qarshi University. Only one image is needed, but I am not sure how to determine which image should remain. Should this be decided based upon technical reasons or contextual reasons? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The one without the side text should be kept, as the added text is a non-creative addition to the logo. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to update, I removed the image with the side text (File:Qarshi_University_logo.jpg) from the infobox. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:V8 vegetable juice.JPG

Image has been deleted for failing WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:10, 4 July 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.

Uploaded as "own work" and licensed as non-free for V8 (beverage). There, however, is already another non-free image being used in the article for the logo so this photo is not really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not necessary. There's no particular unique aspect of this image needed. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Understand. Should WP:NFCC#8 be cited as the reason the image is removed or is there something better? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed image per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As the author of the photo of the can of product, I can't argue. "delete away..." I added a G7 tag to the image itself. Geoff Who, me? 14:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:X360 Logo.png

Image has been deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is being used in Xbox 360 Wireless Headset, Xbox 360 Wireless Racing Wheel and Xbox Live Vision. It has a rationale for each use, these all seem to be various individual components (products) under the X-Box brand, so I'm not sure if non-free use is acceptable in these cases. -Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not appropriate on the sub-product articles. If it happened to fall on the controllers or packaging, that's fine, but not a separate image. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Is there something I can cite in addition to this discussion as the reason why the nfurs are not valid? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Cactus cooler can.jpg

Image has been deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is of a can of Cactus Cooler. Source is given as the Wikipedia user page (User:Hiplibrarianship) of the editor who uploaded the image. Not sure if this is acceptable as non-free use since per WP:NFCC#4 since there's no way to determine whether the image was previously published, if it is a photo the uploader took of the can themselves, or if it was taken from website like this. Soda no longer appears to be part of Dr. Peppers drink line, but I'm wondering if this from a third-party website or this from an archived Dr. Pepper page would be an acceptable replacement for the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Without confirmation that the can image is the user's own photo, the label from the second link above would be a better option since we have better idea of the copyright custody. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded the logo from the archived Dr Pepper Snapple Group webpage and replace the photo of the can. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Scout Association of the West Indies.png

Image has been deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File is used in Scouting and Guiding in Anguilla, Scouting and Guiding in Montserrat, Scouting and Guiding in the Turks and Caicos Islands, The Scout Association of Saint Kitts and Nevis. It has a non-free rationale for each, but in each case the image is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article and is not the subject of critical commentary at all. Only the caption "An earlier Scout emblem incorporates elements of the coat of arms of the Federation of the West Indies." is given as an attempt to establish some context, but same caption is used in 3 out of the 4 articles which sort of means it's not relevant to a particular article. So, image does not really satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and since source is given as "collection of Chris" there's no way to tell if the image has been previously published per WP:NFCC#4 or is simply a photo taken by the uploader. Finally, image has been tagged with {{non-free Scout logo nocontent}} since October 2012, but issue still remains unresolved. - Marchjuly (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kintetsubuffalo: pinging Kintetsubuffalo to this conversation, as he is attributed as being the source.
  • I think the image should be removed from all locations where it is used and deleted. The rationales are all boilerplate rationales and are inaccurate. Nothing is lost by the removal of the image from the respective articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no sourcing to support the idea that the individual logos are derived from the West Indies one, so on that point alone, the association fails OR and NFCC#8 is clearly not met. Removal is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the images from each of the above mentioned articles as well as from Caribbean Scout Jamboree and left explanations in each respective edit sum and on each respective talk page. What, if anything, is typically done when a non-free image that has been removed from an article is simply re-added to the article without addressing any of the reasons why it was removed in the first place? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:NYC Subway Map June 2015.jpg

Image has been deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFCC#1 (free equivalent could exist) . Previous versions of map were free (made from scratch by wikipedians or others who released it under open license), no reason June2015 changes couldn't be edited into it or recreated from scratch to include them. Claim of non-replaceability ("It had been published by the subway owner, the MTA") does not explain why someone else couldn't recreate it using the various data sources. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like File:NYC subway-4D.svg was being used until it was replaced by the editor who uploaded the "June 2015" map. That svg file is Commons image so I agree the new version does not satisfy NFCC#1. Looking at the contribution history of the uploader, it appears that they are relatively new to Wikipedia and, therefore, may not be familiar with WP:NFCCP. Regardless, I think the image should be removed.
For reference, the last editor to update the Commons version was Dream out loud. Perhaps they can clarify whether the existing svg can be edited appropriately to incorporate the new information or needs to be completely replaced. I'll post something on their user talk about this. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If we can have a London Tube map be made free by a user, and get noticed by the press, there is no reason that we can't do it here as well under NFCC#1. There may be reason to use an non-free image if the presentation of the subway map is unique as given by sources, but if not, we can replace it with a free version that does the same job. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the SVG could be easily updated. I've only made minor edits to the map, and I'm not sure what updates need to be made to bring the map up to date. Regardless, the non-free map definitely fails NFCC#1. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Amber Alert SMS.jpg

Single file with single use, should be taken to FFD, as nomination is quite valid. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 29 June 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 replacable with free media. see its rationale. Fazbear7891 (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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


File:24 Waterway.jpg

Nominated for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is being used in List of tallest buildings in The Woodlands. It has a non-free rationale, but not sure if the image really satisfies WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. There seems to be no reason for this particular image to be used as the primary means of identifying all of the buildings in the article, especially since a suitable free image which accomplishes the same things can probably be found at c:Category:The Woodlands, Texas. Since the source given for the image is simply The Woodlands Villager, there's no way to know who took the photo or who owns the copyright. Woodlands Villager is a newspaper, but there is a chance that they got the image themselves from a webpage like this, but there's no way to be sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:24LeMons.jpg

Image was replaced with a direct digital version from the event's website as a better NFCC image, original now marked for orphaned deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is used in 24 Hours of LeMons. It has a rationale, but not sure if it is valid because it is basically a cropped version of photo taken from Flckr page which claims "All rights reserved". It seems better to use this version of the logo found on the race's official website. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The official version without the middleman of a flickr photographer would definitely be much better; the new image can just be uploaded atop the old with a chance in the source. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I will upload the new logo as a new version of the old one. Should the image then be tagged with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Once you have uploaded the new version, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to upload the new logo, but I was unable to because its file extension (png) differs from the original's file extension (jpg). Is there a way to work around this? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
PNG files can't have the file ending JPG. You need to upload it under a PNG name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah right - when you do get the png uploaded, replace the image on the page, and then tag the JPG version with {{di-orphaned fair use}} (and perhaps a note that the PNG exists that is a better version to work from ). --MASEM (t) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem and Jo-jo Eumerus for the assistance. I uploaded the new logo and added it to the article. Please let me know if I did anything wrong. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:3-Musketeers-Mint-Wrapper-Small.jpg

Single image with single use should be discussed at FFD, but this is a prime candidate for deletion per below. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 3 July 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 used in 3 Musketeers (chocolate bar)#Flavor list. It has a non-free use rationale, but does not seem necessary at all. Image is not be discussed and is simply used for decorative purposes so it does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Miles Mikolas with the Yomiuri Giants.jpg

Tagged as di-free replacement possible. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 4 July 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 isn't a logo, but an image of a living person. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:SCOAP Theory.jpg

Single image with single use should be taken to FFD - however, basis of NFCC#1 claim is spot on and deletion would seem appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 5 July 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 NFCC#1. Article-topic is apparently a the concept of relationship among several ideas. Anyone could create a free org-chart or other appropriate flowchart or hierarchy diagram of them. The article is not about this specific image. DMacks (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:4DOS directory listing.png

Potential removal of single images with a single use should be discussed at FFD, not here. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 7 July 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 has a non-free rationale for 4DOS and the rationale states "To identify the effects of the software discussed", but I am not sure how that purpose is being accomplished per WP:NFCC#8 in a way that cannot be done only using text. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Clarksupescompare.jpg

File has been deleted as orphaned non-free image (CSD F5). --GermanJoe (talk) 01:55, 8 July 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.

Montage of two screenshots being used in Christopher Reeve, Superman in film, and Clark Kent#Christopher Reeve films (1978-1987) and Superman Returns (2006). Non-free use rationale is only provided for Superman (1978 film), but the image is not being used there. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#3a even though image is being discussed in some detail in "Clark Kent". - Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any sourced discussion to use this image on any of the pages, outside of a paragraph that explains the visual differences which is unnecessary to include an image for (among all the other shots of Superman/Kent on these pages). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Straight-outta-compton-nwa-movie.jpg

Per Masem—NFCC#2 violation --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 9 July 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 would like community input on the rationale for use of this image. I am aware of the photographer of this image requests deletion. I don’t believe this opinion is controlling, however it may be a relevant piece of information. The images used in three articles, one of which contains a nonfree use rationale and the other two of which do not:

  1. N.W.A (Includes FUR)
  2. MC_Ren (No FUR)
  3. List of songs recorded by N.W.A (No FUR)

I’ve done a moderate amount of FUR work, but almost exclusively related to logos and similar images. I was under the impression that images of living people generally did not qualify, on the argument that it is possible even if not easy to obtain another image. I do note that one of the five members is deceased. Does the fact that this is a group photograph change the conclusion; while it may be possible to obtain images of any one of the living members it might be viewed as impossible to obtain a group photograph?

I also note that the source link is a dead link. If this is retained we ought to correctly identify the source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where the photographer is requesting deletion? One aspect to consider if this was a work for hire, taken by the photographer for the band and/or record label, meaning the copyright belongs to them, or if they was taken by the photographer as a full on freelancers, and thus the copyright fully controlled with him and if that photographer regularly sells such photos they take. If it is the case of the last one, that means this fails NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) and it should be deleted. But if it is not and instead a work for hire and used by the band/label to promote the group, then there's no commercial opportunity aspect here and regular NFCC applies. This still means that the use on List of songs is not appropriate, and definitely not on MC Ren as the person is still alive so there's other ways to get photos of the person. Also, one has to question the possibility of a free image albeit the timing of the group's existance was before the readily-available use of photos on the net, so while there's no obviously NFCC#1 argument here, editors should be on the lookout for pics of the group in free licenses. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Northwest, the original uploader, who might know the source, which might provide insight on some of your questions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried a Tineye search, which did not find it, and a Google image search which found the Wikipedia image, but no other locations. If I did that correctly (not guaranteed) it reduces the likelihood that it was commonly used for publicity purposes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Masem, because User:Sphilbrick may feel bound by OTRS confidentiality requirements, I just wanted to note that the request from the photographer's lawyer comes initially through OTRS and the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team, who requested that Sphilbrick (in his OTRS agent capacity) bring it for community review. We are certain that the photographer owns the image, and we know that it was given to an agency for licensing, but not certain that it was licensed. Please consider this data in assessing its suitability under policy and guideline. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tineye gets 344 hits if you give it the exact url of the image. —Cryptic 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • If it was the case that the photograph gave a license to allow the promotion agency (I'm assuming) to use that photo, as such the photographer retaining the copyright on the photo, that's a strong case to disallow the image under NFCC#2. If they can demonstrate it wasn't a work for hire, we'd have to assume it fails NFCC#2 and look for something else. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is relevant--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Going to the 2012 settlement [3], the photographer is licensing his photos, and whether there's some odd contract aspect there or not, this to me settles the fact this is a NFCC#2 violation ,regardless of whether this was settled or not. There are other photos of the group that are not by this same photographer that could be used instead. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Zude50records.png

Single use image on single page, should be at FFD. Rationale is correct though. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is used in 50 Records to help illustrate the co-hosting of an event with Zude, but this can be done sufficiently using text and the image itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the article. Image probably would be fine for an article about the event, but it is not needed to identify "50 Records" per WP:NFCC#8. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Kennedy Meeks against Louisville, Jan 31, 2015.gif

DELETED:

--George Ho (talk) 19:37, 9 July 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.

Fais WP:NFCCP No. 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is a living person, and no reason a free image could not be taken by someone. Free equivalent at an earlier image of Kennedy at File:20130403 MCDAAG Kennedy Meeks.JPG. It is not historically significant to have an image of him in North Carolina uniform, nor the subject of critical commentary. —Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Obvious violation of CSD:F7, deleted. As I have suggested at the talk page, if the subject objects to the free image (and we have no proof that he does), he is free to provide us with a new one with a Wikipedia license. Everyone's happy then. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:200px-Magik 1c.jpeg

Unused non-free media has been deleted (CSD#F5). --GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is used in Magik (series). It has a non-free use rationale for the article, but there is no source given. Image actually appears to be a user created montage of File:Magik 1c.jpeg, File:Magik 2c.jpeg, File:Magik 3b.jpeg, File:Magik4anewadventure.jpg, File:Magik5heavenbeyond.jpg, File:Tiesto Magik 6.jpg and File:Magik 7.jpg, each of which are used in stand-alone article for each album in the series. There's no indication that image satisfies WP:NFCC#4 since it cannot be verified if the image has been previously published and that it satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since this does not seem an official logo for the entire series. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User-created montages like this are strongly discouraged, since this is basically a montage of 7 non-free images and would be treated as 7 distinct non-frees on that page. And there is no way that page has enough notability even to support one non-free, much less seven. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:So Sofitel Logo.png

Unused non-free image has been deleted (CSD#F5). --GermanJoe (talk) 18:46, 10 July 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 not in use in any article, must be deleted. Also NFC rationale wasn't completed but this is moot given first point. Brianhe (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Novell Logo.png

The file has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A coloured letter like this one is not copyrightable, yes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, clearly PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sky logo.png

The imge has been removed from the child article and the userpage. Further discussion would be necessary to determine the file's copyright status on en.wp. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Sky plc. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed image from userpage per NFCC#9 and from "child" article per UUI#17. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Of note; File:Sky logo.svg has been present on Commons for years now. Not quite the same as this image, but similar level of complexity with regards to threshold of originality. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That file was subject of a deletion request on Commons and was kept, but the keep reason was that it's not a derivative work, but an original work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:JacksonvilleDolphins.png

Image removed from university article. No further discussion on other articles in nearly a month. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Non free logo is being used in the following 4 articles: Jacksonville University, Jacksonville Dolphins, Jacksonville Dolphins men's basketball, and Jacksonville Dolphins football. There is a non-free use rationale provided for each use, but I am wondering whether the sports realted articles would be considered to be child entities of the main university article per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If they are, then article-specific logos are required instead, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The use on JU is unnecessary since the athletics department has its own page. I would argue that the use on the bball and football pages might violate UUI#17, but its nearly standard practice that the team logo be shown even if it shared by other athletic teams, by practice. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The parent entity in this case then would the athletic department (i.e., Jacksonville Dolphins) and the child entities would be each individual team, right? Just for reference, if application of UUI#17 is not warranted in such cases, then NFCC#10c still applies, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the image from "Jacksonville University" per this discussion, but left it the two team articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:JAL Global Club.png

Image has been removed from offending articles by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

The image is being used in Japan Airlines, JAL Express, and J-Air, but only has a non-free use rationale for "Japan Airlines". Normally, this would simply mean removing the images from the other articles per WP:NFCCE. The other articles, however, are being linked to Japan Airlines#JAL Global Club by some kind of template using the markup {{:Japan Airlines}}. Clicking on the "edit" buttons for JAL Express#JAL Global Club and J-Air#JAL Global Club brings you to editing window for "Japan Airlines#JAL Global Club". This is something I've never seen before, so I am not sure if the other uses of the image complies WP:NFCCP or how to edit them out if they do not. It seems to me as if one nfur is being used for three articles. Any suggestions? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed it - it is transcluding that portion of the Japan Airlines page, including the non-free. I have used "noinclude" tags to prevent the non-free from being transcluded elsewhere save for Japan Airlines so should be resolved. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. I've never seen that before so I learned something new. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could just mark it {{pd-textlogo}}, which would make any non-free content restrictions redundant. Conifer (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Jaish al-Fatah Logo.jpg

Non-free images that are used as flagicons are still required to meet WP:NFTABLES. Image removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Image has a non-free use rationale for 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive, but it's being used as part of a {{flag icon}} template in the infobox as part of a list of combatants. Does either WP:NFLISTS or WP:NFTABLES apply here? Image also seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 because it is immediately followed by a wikilink to Army of Conquest so the image appears to be more decorative than informative in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Non-free by default can't be part of tables like this per that reasoning. --MASEM (t) 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. So removing the image per NFTABLES would be acceptable, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be proper. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Season 4 cast.png

Solved by tagging with {{subst:nsdnld}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 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.

Lacks any licensing info. Also may be of too high of a resolution to be used on WP. Dismas|(talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

List of political parties in Turkey

Invalid usages have been removed. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

The non-free logos violate WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Each of the political parties in that table has a stand-alone Wikipedia article which is wikilinked; Therefore, the non-free images are not needed for identification at all. File:Justice and Development Party.png in particular is being used in 6 Wikipedia articles, but only has a nfur for one. The question is how to best remove these images from the table without messing it up too bad. One of the images used (File:MHP flag.svg) is licensed as public domain so it technically doesn't need to be removed, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hammersoft. -Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Bangistan First Look.jpg

Bot has reduced image on 30 June. High-res image deleted. --GermanJoe (talk) 02:04, 19 July 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.

Very high quality fair use image Raziman T V (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Cajjmere Wray Press Photo.jpg

Image has been deleted - non-free image of a living person. --GermanJoe (talk) 02:42, 19 July 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.

Subject on image is alive, and can not be used under fair use. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no NFC rationale there. If the subject is alive the image is likely replaceable as well by a free one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:FourontheFloor.jpg

Tagged as orphaned image. You can these types of images yourself and do not need to report that here. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File is non-free and is not used on any page. Jack Gaines (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Caitlyn Jenner recieving an ESPY Award.jpg

Single image with single use, should be taken to FFD for deletion. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 19 July 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.

uploader did not even bother to fill out the template for all of NFCC. Seems to obviously fail NFCC #1 and #2 . If this image is deemed "irreplaceable" so would almost any photo of any celebrity. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:NashvilleKats.png and File:NashvilleKatsOld.png

Resolved (redundant file deleted). --GermanJoe (talk) 17:53, 22 July 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.

Images are being used in Nashville Kats. They seem essentially identical with only some minor differences in color and to the football so I do not see how both are needed per WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The older one is definitely so close as to not be necessary unless there is some sourced explainaion for the change in the logo (that I don't see). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, NFCC failure. The older one is not needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Greece National Football Team.svg

Issue resolved (2 files deleted, 1 file description improved). --GermanJoe (talk) 17:45, 22 July 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.

WP:F7

Wikipedia:Non-free content

  • Policy
    • 4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia :by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

The problem is about this logo and their copies:

Greece national football team and their logos owned by the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF). The HFF, in their official webpage (epo.gr) or in other same places (media), has not published that logo. --IM-yb (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if these logos meet the Threshold of originality. Commons cites a few examples of non-original logos and these ones here appear to be below the US threshold, which may justify a {{PD-USonly}} tag (I dunno about TOO in Greece at all). Will need more opinions though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The File:Greece National Football Team.svg has in the summary the template {{logo fur}}. The other copies has {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{Trademarked}}. Has not official sources and are for speedy deletion. --IM-yb (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd delete the first two in the bulleted list, keep the last one, and use it in any place where the others are used. The last one should be modified to mark as free, as it is _well_ beneath the threshold of originality. Just text and some boxes here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I am in the right place, for that problem. The only source of the above logos is i30.photobucket.com. The source is not official. This is only a logo from the internet. Only Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) in their official webpage (epo.gr) or in other same places (media), presents the official logos. It fails WP:F7 and WP:F Policy #4. Therefore, all the logos (3) are for speedy deletion. --IM-yb (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The files do not meet the threshold of originality. As such, they are not subject to speedy deletion under F7, and they do not have to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. Thus, the reasons stipulated for them to be deleted do not apply. Now, if these images are in fact not the logos of the organizations on which pages they reside, then the images should be removed from those pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, even if the images were non-free (and they aren't), they would not be deletable under WP:NFCC#4. As you note, their website is http://www.epo.gr. That page contains an element linking to (as they describe it) their "Official Facebook Page". Featured very prominently on their official Facebook page is this very logo. In the digital age, that counts as prior publication. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I understood. Thank you. --IM-yb (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No worries. Also, if we're still uncertain about prior publishing with Facebook, this is convincing; [4]. They played with the logo on their jerseys. This counts as prior publishing too. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in en:wiki infoboxes of national football teams articles, we don't use crests of the shirts, if these crests are not published as separate logos. For example, the article Poland national football team has not in the infobox the kit crest ([5]). OK. The logo of Greece national football team is sourced now. Thank you again. --IM-yb (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but not a discussion apropos for this forum anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hammersoft I put the one logo in any place where the others are used. Now you can delete the first two logos, as you said and change the summary of that File:Greece National Football Team.svg, that should be modified to mark as free, as it is _well_ beneath the threshold of originality, as you said. --IM-yb (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've updated the licensing on the (now) master image [6]. Thanks for doing the legwork to get it onto the articles where the others were used! I can't delete the other two images as I'm not an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've deleted them. I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ΟΚ. Nothing. That's it! --IM-yb (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Paradise Birmingham Images.png

Deleted (orphaned non-free). --GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

No longer used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:ASHWaleslogo.jpg

Standard di-orphan tag applied. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 24 July 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.

Unused, as apparently out-of-date. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Aerial shot of Portsmouth Historic Dockyard.tif

File has been deleted under WP:CSD#F7 --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 24 July 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's stated Fair Use Rationale seems to me to be at variance with Fair Use for multiple reasons. The FUR is incomplete; the file is of stunning size and definition; and it appears that it could be replaced with any number of pictures taken on a visit to the dockyard by any local editor. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Title card of american horror story, hotel.png

Deleted as orphaned. --GermanJoe (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

No licensing info on file page. Also may be of too high a resolution for use on WP. Dismas|(talk) 10:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is, it's also orphaned and lacks a rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added {{non-free logo}}. The textures are copyrightable in my opinion. Fails WP:NFCC#10a. If not added to an article for some time, a bot will tag this as an orphaned non-free file. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:D-watertruck.jpg

Files have been deleted (no source information). --GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 29 July 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 used in Dusty the Dusthole. It has a non-free rationale, but doesn't seem to be needed since the pretty much the same information is provided by File:Dusthole-billboard.jpg used in the same article. Also, source is simply given as "water truck" so it is unclear if the photo was taken by the uploader or taken from some other place. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I think the lack of proper sourcing leads this image towards deletion. Reading the article, I could seen argument for the use of an image like this one to support the prose noting the campaign's impact...just not this photo. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the image as {{di-no source}}. I also tagged File:Dusthole-billboard.jpg the same way as well since it is also lacking a proper source. Notes were left on the uploader's talk page asking them to provide better sourcing information, but they have not edited in more than 7 years so I'm not sure if they will provide the information that is needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:ACDC Promotional Photo.jpg

Image tagged for delayed deletion now. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 5 August 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 ample non-free images of the band, including the current live main photo at AC/DC Flat Out (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you listed this for discussion. This is obviously replaceable and has been tagged for deletion already. -- Whpq (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_66&oldid=1141909215"