Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 2
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 2)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Nard the Bard in topic 4 December 2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
_SC.jpg){kind=link}
1 August 2007
fair use is claimed for a non-free image of dvd/cd/album cover displayed in the infobox which is being used to illustrate the subject of the article Andre Previn contrary to the provisions of {{Non-free album cover}} --emerson7 | Talk 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unambiguous violation. I've orphaned it. —Angr 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
2 August
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Fair use of book being requested in article about the term "Molly Mormon" which does not deal primarily or even substantially with the book. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands right now, it usage is totally inappropriate in Molly Mormon. howcheng {chat} 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- If this image truly doesn't belong here, then let's remove it. Before reviewing this, please consider that this review stems from a ridiculous content dispute that has gone on so long, he was accused by another editor of likely making a WP:POINT when he (speedily unsuccessfully) sent the article to AfD. This is now attempt #4. Luke edits many Mormon-related articles, and judging from his persistence at removing this article's content, he clearly has a personal bias involved (religious or otherwise). I feel Luke perhaps just doesn't know when to cool it. To address the fair use issue being claimed, WP:NFCC has 10 criteria. The use of the image meets all 10. None of those criteria require that a nonfree book cover be used only in an article about the book itself. Also, WP:NONFREE (a guideline) says it only needs to be relevant, in the context of critical commentary, which clearly exists here. Reswobslc 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not true at all. Cover art can only be used within the context of critical commentary about that item, not about the concept of Molly Mormons in general. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The critical commentary I am referring to reads as follows (though you may not have seen it, because Luke recently deleted it). "A series of paperback romance novels written by an LDS author has also appropriated the term into the series' title. The title Molly Mormon? by Tamra Norton (ISBN 1555176062), characterizes the term of attempted perfection with a halo over the word Molly.". If that's not "critical commentary", and on Wikipedia "critical commentary" solely means "An article about the book", then let's remove the image and update the guidelines to be more clear. Reswobslc 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- That may actually pass muster, as the cover art is specifically being discussed. -- But|seriously|folks 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- And this is a perfect place to discuss the book as well. Goodness knows, if we tried to start a Molly Morman (book) article, it would be tagged with a Merge or non-notable --Knulclunk 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That may actually pass muster, as the cover art is specifically being discussed. -- But|seriously|folks 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The critical commentary I am referring to reads as follows (though you may not have seen it, because Luke recently deleted it). "A series of paperback romance novels written by an LDS author has also appropriated the term into the series' title. The title Molly Mormon? by Tamra Norton (ISBN 1555176062), characterizes the term of attempted perfection with a halo over the word Molly.". If that's not "critical commentary", and on Wikipedia "critical commentary" solely means "An article about the book", then let's remove the image and update the guidelines to be more clear. Reswobslc 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not true at all. Cover art can only be used within the context of critical commentary about that item, not about the concept of Molly Mormons in general. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per above, the article now includes some more detail about the book, so it probably passes fair use at this point. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Two sentences? No, that doesn't pass. This image would be usable in article about the book, or in a significant section that is substantially about the book, but the current page doesn't cut it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image:CKeeler1.jpg redux
The use of this image in Profumo Affair was originally discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 1#Profumo Affair. User:Jheald made an initial attempt, but IMO this still falls far short of the standard set in WP:NFCC #8. Please discuss this at Talk:Profumo Affair#Keeler image as I have opened a RFC as well so I would like to consolidate the discussion in a single location. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
4 August
8 August
10 August
12 August
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Russians in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anti-Russian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I need help with this image. While there is no article on the Svoboda political party that issued this poster, it is being used in those two abovementioned articles to illustrate other points. There is more argumentation at the image talk page. A review of this image's use and possible fair-use violation would be appreciated. --Hillock65 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Absent any evidence that this particular poster is a keystone of anti-Russian sentiment or of the experience of Russians in Ukraine, it fails NFCC. It appears to be simply an example of anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine which could be replaced with other, free examples. <eleland/talkedits> 14:45, 4 December 2007 (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.
14 August
18 August
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The images were deleted and the action was upheld at deletion review Videmus Omnia Talk 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the list of logos in Iraqi insurgency#Insurgency groups logos a violation of WP:NFCC#8? Videmus Omnia Talk 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. —Angr 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed them, but they've placed back by an editor who believes that I may have a COI. It's probably best if the image list is removed by another editor. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- NFCC#8 restricts "potentially replaceable" images, which these are not. Any replacement would be of essentially the same non-free images. Therefore, I believe they are allowed even in a gallery because they quite obviously serve to identify, and "identification" is an explicitly allowed non-free use per {{logo}}. ←BenB4 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- NFCC#8 is not about replaceability. It says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These logos do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the Iraqi insurgency, and their omission is not detrimental to that understanding. —Angr 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I apologize for referring to the wrong criterion #8 below instead of above its reference.
- The significance criterion is most certainly met. The images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" because they allow readers to identify the group from the logo, a function that you would expect a comprehensive reference on the topic to serve. Removing the images removes that very useful ability from the article. As {{logo}} states, use of non-free logos for identification is explicitly permitted under the current policy. ←BenB4 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- These images are now on deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 21. Why do I get involved in these things? -- But|seriously|folks 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- NFCC#8 is not about replaceability. It says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These logos do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the Iraqi insurgency, and their omission is not detrimental to that understanding. —Angr 13:21, 19 August 2007 (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.
19 August
20 August
21 August
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg){kind=link}
22 August
23 August
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- I finally took care of this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This page has tons of pictures of puppets, divided by historical period, etc. Many of these photos are non-free. Most are in galleries. Someone really ought to go through and figure out which ones can be kept, and how. Any volunteers? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Crickets chip, a tumbleweed blows across the page...
- Thanks for volunteering, Quadell! —Angr 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry -- I exceeded my wormcan limit for this quarter during my most recent unwarranted deletion spree. Maybe in October . . . -- But|seriously|folks 08:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- You take pride in that as if it was a merit badge :) nadav (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yah, I messed up. -- But|seriously|folks 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- You take pride in that as if it was a merit badge :) nadav (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry -- I exceeded my wormcan limit for this quarter during my most recent unwarranted deletion spree. Maybe in October . . . -- But|seriously|folks 08:31, 29 August 2007 (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.
30 August
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:James-kim-techtv.jpg){kind=link}
September 18
I have attempted to explain to User:Featherfin that he/she should not be adding Fair use album cover images to the article about the artist, (The Cooper Temple Clause) but he/she insists on re-adding them. What are my options? Corvus cornix 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The images seem to have stayed removed since Sep 18. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
September 23
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Fair use images uploaded by User:Wl219
I am requesting FUR of the following images that I uploaded over the span of the last year:
- Image:Fob-cover.gif (fair use, book cover)
- Image:183clubalbum.jpg (fair use, album cover)
- Image:Bramson ORT logo.gif (fair use, institution logo)
- Image:Diplomaticlicense.jpg (fair use, TV logo)
- Image:Fordham-iplj.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- Image:Bluebook.jpg (fair use, book cover)
- Image:FordhamFinSecTaxLawForum.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- Image:FordhamJCorp&FinL.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- Image:Formosa airport argentina.jpg (fair use, promotional image)
- Image:Brick-single-cover.jpg (fair use, single cover)
I assert that there is a fair use rationale for each of them, but User:VegitaU has tagged all of them as disputed. Not only that, he has also deleted what I wrote down as my rationales and then had the gall to warn me about removing content. I believe that I properly addressed VegitaU's concerns and legitimately removed the dispute tags, but then he reverted. At first I assumed good faith but his pattern of behavior suggests to me a campaign of harassment. However in the interest of civility I'm bringing all the images here so that 3rd persons can comment. If the FUR results in delete then fine, it's Wikipedia's loss not having these images that I believe are legitimate fair use. If the FUR results in keep then I want it made clear to VegitaU to stop what he's doing. Wl219 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Smashing! Allow me to retort. I have informed the user above about the regulations guiding matters on image use. None of the supposed "fair use rationales" the user has provided have followed the regulations set forth here, regardless of efforts to educate him to the contrary. Additionally, the user has used incorrect copyright tags to mark "magazine covers". These images, as anyone can see upon first glance, are not magazine covers, but inner contents, copyrighted and, as always with him, with no appropriate fair use rationales. Now, I am particularly amused by the Formosa airport image. I have been reviewing non-free images on Wikipedia for quite some time. This user has apparently not heard of freely-replaceable images, or, more likely, has chosen to ignore my constant reminders. Any knowledgeable reviewer will recognize this image must be deleted immediately since a free image may be obtained. Also, this user has been waving the symbolic "harassment finger" unto my actions, without realizing, of course, that there is already a harassment guideline which states that: This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. I welcome any comments on the matter from educated reviewers. Thanks. -- VegitaU 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, let's have a look at this:
- Image:Fob-cover.gif (fair use, book cover)
- Hard to see exactly what this is from. Could well be the cover of a play guide, and in that case the tag is the closest appropriate and there is a valid cause for fair use (for identification purposes). A rationale needs to be written.
- Image:183clubalbum.jpg (fair use, album cover)
- Image:Brick-single-cover.jpg (fair use, single cover)
- No question that these are going to stay, particularly the last one. Need rationales, I'll see what I can do.
- Image:Bramson ORT logo.gif (fair use, institution logo)
- Image:Diplomaticlicense.jpg (fair use, TV logo)
- Logos for the purpose of identification in the articles on the subject. Allowed by default, rationale missing but not exactly difficult to add.
- Image:Bluebook.jpg (fair use, book cover)
- Does appear to be a cover for the purpose of identification. Allowed, but needs rationale.
- Image:Fordham-iplj.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- Image:FordhamFinSecTaxLawForum.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- Image:FordhamJCorp&FinL.png (fair use, magazine cover)
- These ones are harder to make a case for. They're not really that identifying, in that it's scans of the tables of contents. Of course, there is the possibility that these journals don't in fact have any other covering.
- Image:Formosa airport argentina.jpg (fair use, promotional image)
- Unquestioningly a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Mark for deletion.
- As far as I'm concerned, the only ones warranting a review are the Fordham ones, and maybe the Fob one to determine what it is. The others seem OK, albeit with missing rationales. --Pekaje 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the Fordham covers, they are, in fact, journal covers and not the inside contents pages. HeinOnline.org is a journal archive service which scans the printed issues (including front/back covers) into PDF, which allows readers to read them with their original formatting. I uploaded the cover PNG image from the Hein PDF. The magazine fair use criterion is the closest match, as a periodical publication. Wl219 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is common for law reviews to be published with their TOC as the cover and not have an inside contents page. Notice the practices of Yale, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern all follow this convention. Wl219 22:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, in that case I think we can agree on that. Ordinarily we don't allow such high-resolution images in the fair-use category. However, a case might be made for it here, in that much lower than 500px high would render the text useless and therefore the image pointless. But in that case it should explicitly be explained in the fair use rationale. And BTW, you seriously should take a look at WP:FURG, because someone will eventually spot a missing or poorly argued fair use rationale (which they all were, as far as I can tell). I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about what kind of justification is required. --Pekaje 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's, what, the sixth time someone's told him about WP:FURG? -- VegitaU 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've found the original source of the FOB image here: [7]. I think it might qualify under magazine cover fair use if it was on a Playbill cover, or poster fair use. However, I concede that I haven't been able to find evidence that this specific graphic was used for the book cover of a published edition of the play. There is another possible book cover that may be useable, here: [8]. Wl219 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it definitely looks more like a poster, but I'm no expert. The cover in the second link is, IMO, of too low resolution to be usable, and I'm also not sure of its relevance. Based on some other plays in the first link, I'm inclined to believe that it is in fact the poster for the play that is being shown. As such, {{non-free poster}} applies. --Pekaje 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:20, 17 December 2007 (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.
September 24
October 5
October 7
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved - image not F/U removed, others licensed & tagged correctly. SkierRMH (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I please get a FUR on the images in this article? There's been concern at the WP:GA/R that the images aren't appropriate.
- Image:Snicketbookset.jpg - some concern as to if this can be licensed under GFDL, as it is a picture of the books' design, which is copyrighted. Probably comes down to whether you consider a book's cover to being a 2D or 3D object.
- Image:ThePenultimatePeril.JPG - seems to have been put there to illustrate the plot summary???
- Is used in infobox as well as in a compare/contrast with alternate cover w/commentary. Appears to be OK.SkierRMH 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Orphelins.jpg - doesn't seem particularly relevant to where it is in the article. (Themes) Fair use rationale says it illustrates the calendar.
- Since the calendar isn't mentioned in the article, can't seem to justify this one. SkierRMH 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Image:The grim grotto uk.jpg - seems okay, in the section discussing the books.
- Image:Tragictreasury.jpg - seems okay, in the section discussing the soundtrack.
Cheers. -Malkinann 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image:Pac-man.png - I'm only disputing the rationale of it used in the video game article. The rationale listed is:
- There is no free equivalent
- It will not hinder the copyright owner's ability to sell the related product
- It is of low resolution, and it is not used extensively
- Similar images are posted elsewhere
- This image helps contribute to encyclopedic content
- Has no unresolvable problems with the Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Is on at least one page because it is on Video game
- Is significant to the Video game article because it provides a picture of the most famous and iconic example of a typical game
- Shouldn't be used outside of the article namespace
- Has this notice as well as a copyright tag
Number four isn't really relevant for fair use rationale. But what I'm really questioning is number 1. It implies that there's no free equivalent - when there do exist free screenshots of games. It's not necessary that this one be used for the video game article, especially if we could use a free screenshot. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I imagine plenty of videogames are available under free licenses. We should be using a screenshot of one of those instead. Calliopejen1 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's necessary - see number 7. You can't exactly have a video game article without having a picture of the most famous and iconic game. 79.75.146.78 14:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, in the article Video game it's completely replaceable with a free equivalent since there are freely licensed video games. —Angr 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that, since the article doesn't actually discuss Pac-Man, no need for this game to be the one doing the illustration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should be removed from video game, unless the article has changed, which it should, must be a pretty weak article if it doesn't even discuss Pac-Man. 67.173.131.28 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that, since the article doesn't actually discuss Pac-Man, no need for this game to be the one doing the illustration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, in the article Video game it's completely replaceable with a free equivalent since there are freely licensed video games. —Angr 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's necessary - see number 7. You can't exactly have a video game article without having a picture of the most famous and iconic game. 79.75.146.78 14:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a strong case for including Pac-Man: it was, to some extent, a paradigm of video games for decades. Games of all sorts exist, but for a long time video games were associated with stylized, pixelated characters interacting in a highly unrealistic plot and setting. Gran Turismo is a racing game, Halo is a shoot-em-up, Mario is an adventure game, but Pac-Man just defies pigeonholing. Plus there's the notability in popular culture, which itself makes a case for a copyrighted game screenshot: no free game can convey the idea that video games occasionally go beyond just what's on screen (Mario or Halo would also work in such cases). But I agree with the above IP: if we can't work in Pac-Man itself as a game into the article, then the image should go. Kelvinc 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, the way it's used in the article is not to illustrate Pac-Man's unique gameplay features -- it's simply used at the top of the article to illustrate video games in general, and any game screenshot would perform the same function. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with a free image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image deleted according to I7 - fair use wasn't provided. SkierRMH (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Annie2007small.jpg I seem to be having ridiculous trouble with this one. I asked Annie via an email for a suitable image for WP & her agent sent me one. It's in the article and credited to the photographer, who has also given permission for its use in Wikipedia. But whatever rationale I put on, it keeps being disputed. The only way a free image would be available is for me to go to one of her gigs and take one, but I'm too old for that sort of thing and can't afford it anyway. What do I do? Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The reason the bot tagged that article is that the rationale doesn't name the article the rationale applies to (which is required for WP:NFCC#10c). That part is easy to remedy.
- There is also the issue that, since Annie Nightingale is alive, we don't generally permit nonfree images to be used to identify her. If the Old Grey Whistle Test is a notable show, we may be able to use that image from the article (it would help if the article backed up the notability of her hosting). But the green one image isn't going to pass our restrictions about replaceable nonfree images unless it is released under a free license. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Write an email to her or the agent, and say that the Wikipedia is meant to be reused, so needs images that others can reuse. We need them to put it under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License or the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. If she and/or agent agree, forward the email to permissions-en AT wikimedia.org, and Bob's your uncle. If they don't agree, ask the Flickr user who owns http://flickr.com/photos/breakspoll/112990909/ and http://flickr.com/photos/breakspoll/113001158/ if they would be willing to change their licenses to CC-BY-SA, and we would give them attribution. It sometimes works; not always, but more often than not. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (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.
October 11
October 16
October 19
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Please consult Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG and Talk:Nobel Prize for the dispute about this image of the medal in the photograph Image:DSCN0732.JPG in Nobel Prize's infobox, which appears to be a violation of copyright and trademark of the Nobel medal image of the Nobel Foundation, and fair use criteria of Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly not a copyright violation as it is the work of a contributor. Explanation is provided and a trademark template is included concerning the subject of the photo. aNubiSIII (T / C) 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What's the short answer of why the design of the medal is not under copyright? -- But|seriously|folks 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- [Short answer: "the design of the medal" is both "under copyright" and trademark as the logo of the Nobel Foundation. The statement that it is not the copyright (as well as trademark) of the Nobel Foundation is false. --NYScholar 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
- That contributor who responded is the creator of the photograph; the design of the Nobel medal is a trademarked logo of the Nobel Foundation and its display is protected by the Nobel Foundation via its copyright and trademark notices requiring written permission before it may be displayed anywhere and only if permission is granted in writing, following such written permission being granted, one is required to use both a trademark and a copyright symbol followed by "The Nobel Foundation" in any use of it. This photograph is a personal photograph and should not be posted on the internet via the license claimed in Wikipedia. It violates the notices on the Nobel Foundation's offical website (as the user does know). He (or she [understood throughout]) refuses to accept these facts and his (or her) "licensing" description is misleading. See User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16#Previous discussion re: Image:Nobel in Literature.jpg for quotations of the notice that pertain to the display of the image of the Nobel medal (Alfred Nobel's profile stamped on Nobel medals). --NYScholar 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[gender neutrality intended throughout. --NYScholar 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Specifically the "design" of the Nobel medal is both copyrighted and a trademarked logo of the Nobel Foundation, as its website clearly states in its warnings and notices. --NYScholar 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the notice: "Copyright" and "Trademark" from nobelprize.org (official website of the Nobel Foundation). The notice refers to all images and to all photographs of Nobel medals, not only to those distributed by the Nobel Foundation itself on its website; that includes photographs that individuals take of medals in museums and on display in cases in other venues. It pertains to the photograph taken by User:Anubis3, who posts with a different signature above (one and the same user as the creator of the photograph). --NYScholar 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [See sec. re: "Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate." Such written permission is required before any such "use". --NYScholar 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Re: the use of the logo of the design of the medal (in photographs or otherwise) see the section on "Trademarks" in "Copyright: Legal Notice", a PDF accessible via the previous link given; it's part of the copyright notice. --NYScholar 08:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Following that section on "Trademarks" is a separate section on "Copyrights", stating: Everything, including but not limited to the articles, texts, photographs, images, data, files, audio and video clips, illustrations, designs, educational games and documentation in whole or in part (the “Content”) which appears on the Site is either proprietary to Nobel Web or used in accordance with applicable law or third party consents." (Italics added.) --NYScholar 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically the "design" of the Nobel medal is both copyrighted and a trademarked logo of the Nobel Foundation, as its website clearly states in its warnings and notices. --NYScholar 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aside from not being particularly short, that doesn't answer my question. -- But|seriously|folks 08:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it's the same design they've been using since the start, presumably there's a strong chance the basic design is now copyright-expired? As for the website boilerplate, we shouldn't necessarily accept that uncritically -- notices like this do all too often get slapped on stuff people don't actually own the rights to, or where rights have expired. Without having done any research, a-priori I would think there is a good chance it's now PD. Jheald 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Peace medal sculpted by Gustav Vigeland, d. 1943. But presumably published in the United States before 1923, so now out of U.S. copyright? {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} ? Jheald 11:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it's the same design they've been using since the start, presumably there's a strong chance the basic design is now copyright-expired? As for the website boilerplate, we shouldn't necessarily accept that uncritically -- notices like this do all too often get slapped on stuff people don't actually own the rights to, or where rights have expired. Without having done any research, a-priori I would think there is a good chance it's now PD. Jheald 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What's the short answer of why the design of the medal is not under copyright? -- But|seriously|folks 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that copy and pasting your (NYScholar) lengthy discussion is going to make your argument correct or more convincing. Again, I think where there is a misunderstanding is that the notices you are referring to, are under the "Terms and Conditions" of the NobelPrize.org website and is referring to the content of NobelPrize.org. This picture is clearly not from that website. Regardless of the subject of the photo, the person who takes the photograph owns the copyright to it under US copyright law (I don't know if this could be any more clear). The subject of the photo, however, may limit its use. In this case the trademark. But the trademark, here, is noted with a template on the page and on wikipedia the use of this image is non-commercial. Further copyers/distributors have to take note of the trademark. Here is a similar picture in commons under the same principle [10]. So, NYScholar, I really don't understand what the problems is because so far only you have vehemently questioned this. ButSeriouslyFolks, I hope I was better able to answer your question. Best, aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
![[10]](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-of-coca-cola.jpg){kind=link}
- Not necessarily. The person who takes a photograph has copyright in it under US law, but the subject of the image may also be copyrighted to someone else, making the photograph a derivative work. If the subject is copyrighted, the image is non-free, no matter what the photographer says.
- Jheald is on the right track here. I would think the medal and/or its design were published (which can include public display of a medal) in the US prior to 1923, so I would agree it is most likely PD in the US. Not sure of the proper tag, though. -- But|seriously|folks 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I can see how one could possibly consider this a derivative work. But, even so, if there is that issue, then this work clesrly has a degree of originality to it (i.e. angle, lighting, background, resolution, etc.). In other words, it is not attempting to be passed off as the original or depicting the original in a negative way. I will also, however, try to research when it was first published in the US so that this situation can finally be cleared up with this user. Thanks. aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are potentially two copyrights in play, the original copyright of the medal design and the photographer's copyright in the particular photo of the medal. Probably should have said it that clearly above. If the medal is PD, we only have to worry about the photograph, and if that's released, we're good. -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of the tags available at the moment, IMO {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} seems closest. But I can see there might be a case for creating a new tag {{PD-Roundart-US-1923-abroad}}, based on that and {{PD-Roundart}}. Jheald 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are potentially two copyrights in play, the original copyright of the medal design and the photographer's copyright in the particular photo of the medal. Probably should have said it that clearly above. If the medal is PD, we only have to worry about the photograph, and if that's released, we're good. -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I can see how one could possibly consider this a derivative work. But, even so, if there is that issue, then this work clesrly has a degree of originality to it (i.e. angle, lighting, background, resolution, etc.). In other words, it is not attempting to be passed off as the original or depicting the original in a negative way. I will also, however, try to research when it was first published in the US so that this situation can finally be cleared up with this user. Thanks. aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image in the photograph (the "design" of a Nobel medal) is the "proprietary" trademark and copyright of the Nobel Foundation. When in doubt about whether or not permission has been received and granted for displaying the Nobel Foundation's Nobel medal image, one needs to consult intellectual property attorneys. The above posters are not lawyers. Their opinions contradict the copyright and trademark notices posted by the owners of the image. Their guesses are not informed by knowledge of copyright and trademark laws or by Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies relating to fair use. --NYScholar 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- See the recent admission by the uploader (Anubis3) that her/his photograph would likely not be permitted by the Nobel Foundation: [11]; Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG#Email the Nobel Foundation. That calls into question further the claims on the image page for this "derivative work" (the photograph). --NYScholar 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Moreover, the licensing and its claims violate Wikipedia's own policies pertaining to fair use. The image page needs to feature the proper templates and to correct the false and misleading information in the licensing claims. --NYScholar 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- In my view, it should be a "candidate for speedy deletion"; reverting of the template that I placed on the image by its creator deleted that intention. The image should not appear in Wikipedia articles with misleading information on the image page. Wikipedians are required by policy to delete potential copyright and trademark violations (which is why I deleted the image from the article earlier); by reverting my deletion of the image, the user in question has been engaging in violations of WP:3RR (I have filed and updated my report there). --NYScholar 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:DSCN0732.JPG){kind=link}
As stated above by another user: the photograph of the medal on display is a "derivative work" and such works are subject to proprietary copyright and trademark of the design of the medal as posted publicly and clearly by the Nobel Foundation. Its posting in Wikipedia is not within fair use; written permission is required by the Nobel Foundation for such "use" of its design in photographs and images of its Nobel medal. One can enjoy one's own photograph privately; to post it publicly on the internet and to claim ownership in false licensing violate Wikipedia policies pertaining to copyright and fair use of such derivative works. --NYScholar 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're confusing copyright and trademark law. We are not prohibited from using other's trademarks as long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. Wikipedia readers understand that the presence of a trademark or logo in an article does not mean that the article is being produced by the trademark holder. As for the permission issue, the copyright concept of fair use permits us to use images without permission in certain cases, and if the use of the image complies with our non-free content policy, which is narrower than US fair use law, then no permission is required. -- But|seriously|folks 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Claims of fair use require a detailed fair-use rationale listing every instance of its use in Wikipedia. The image has no detaileed fair-use rationale. I am not "confusing" copyright and trademark. The Nobel Foundation website addresses the "design" of the medal (all of its medals; "everything" under its proprietary notices) clearly. The design is both copyrighted and trademarked as the logo of the Foundation. Giving the image as if it were with the permission of the Nobel Foundation and failing to provide notices with copyright and trademark symbols such as "Original design" copyright and trademark registered (symbols) The Nobel Foundation violate its notices; not seeking written permission to display its logo clearly violates its notices that one must do so. Otherwise one gives the false impression that the featuring of the image that belongs to the Nobel Foundation has been done with its permission. It has not been.
- "Butseriouslyfolks" pov is not in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statements re: fair use. The image placed in Nobel Prize is not within fair use and the image page does not address the need for a detailed fair use rationale pertaining to its use in Nobel Prize. The only place where that particular image would make any sense is as an illustration of the article on the person (Norman Angell) who received that particular medal in 1933; if placed in that article, it would still need a detailed fair-use rationale on its page. The licensing statement is false and misleading. The uploader does not own the rights (copyright or trademark) to the image of Alfred Nobel stamped on the medal. S/He has created a "derivative work" from copyright and trademark-protected content. It would not pass muster in Wikipedia Commons for the same reasons and it is misleadingly uploaded to Wikipedia. It should be removed while permission is pending for its use from the Nobel Foundation. Such permission has not been received (yet). If written permission is granted, then it could be featured with the proper "Original design" notice of copyright and trademark by the Nobel Foundation. The creator of a derivative work based on an original protected design does not have permission to feature it on the internet. See discussions pertaining to images on stamps, self-created derivative videos of original works owned by others, and so on. It is also not clear whether the museum where it was photographed permits such photography. The Nobel Foundation Museum in Stockholm prohibits such photography of its artifacts housed there. A large sign at the entrance states the prohibition. Other museums often have similar photography prohibitions. Their proprietary rights need to be taken into account too (who owns the physical artifact currently); the design of the medal (which is the way it is being featured in Nobel Prize) is not the property of the museum holding one medal. The medal's image design is what places this license in doubt (makes it "dubious"). I suggest that experts in Wikipedia's fair use criteria and copyright issues comment here re: this derivative work (photograph) of the Nobel medal design. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If it matters, the design of the medal in the photo is the same as the current design so it may be difficult to prove that it is a photo of a medal from 1933. See [12]. I don't know how copyright works for something in which the design has not changed in the last 70+ years, but if it has in fact expired, shouldn't anyone in the world be able to reproduce the Nobel Peace Prize Medal? –panda 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The design(s) of the Nobel medals (all of the Nobel medals, including the Nobel Peace Prize medal) have not in fact expired; the design of the Nobel Peace Prize medal (as the designs of the other Nobel medals) is still trademarked and copyright protected by the Nobel Foundation. There is no point in trying to make up interpretations of copyright laws in this manner with a limited knowledge of the laws. Copyright law fair use provisions make very clear that when doubt exists, one should consult an intellectual property attorney and that lack of knowledge of current copyright laws is not considered a legal defense in copyright violation cases. I have linked U.S. copyright provisions in my own talk page; please consult it for further information if you have such questions. The design for the Nobel medal has renewed trademark and copyright registrations by the Nobel Foundation; its own current notices are germane (not [various] Wikipedians' faulty speculations based on incomplete understanding of copyright laws and the restrictions of copyright notices. Please read the notices again. --NYScholar 22:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- For an image of the 1933 Peace Prize medal featured on nobelprize.org, see 1933 index page. The description of the medal that appears in the image page created by User:Anubis3 appears to be more and more misleading, and its relevance for an infobox in Nobel Prize is disputed; Norman Angell was the recipient of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, which has a separate article in Wikipedia. Anubis3's image would not necessarily be an improvement if added to that article either (or to Norman Angell, as its provenance is still disputed and there is still no detailed fair-use rationale pertaining to its use anywhere in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If one uses one's mouse to highlight the image on the Nobel Foundation page for Angell, one sees that there is a clearcut symbol (R in a circle) for registered trademark (and the Nobel Foundation site copyright is registered too) there; if one goes to "The Nobel Peace Prize Medal", one sees the same design image as the image in the photograph that Anubis3 has posted in Wikipedia's Nobel Prize (misleadingly, I believe); the Nobel Foundation website provides a clear notice saying that it (the medal; its design) is the "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation." That notice presents clearly this conflict: it establishes problems in the posting of this image with the license given by the uploader with no detailed fair-use rationale for use in Nobel Prize. I do not believe that the use of this image constitutes "fair use" according to either the Nobel Foundation's or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no justification for featuring this registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation in the infobox for Nobel Prize. The official site provides the images and says that one cannot publish them without written permission and (when written permission is received and only then) with the proper registered trademark and copyright symbols). --NYScholar 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- [Note that other articles pertaining to the Nobel Prizes do not feature the image of the medals because such images have been deleted in the past for violations of copyright, trademark, and fair use provisions of U.S. and international copyright laws. The same problems pertain to the uploaded image by Anubis3. --NYScholar 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Updated above. I'm logging out of Wikipedia to do other things. --NYScholar 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Please stop bringing up the trademark. That's clouding the issue. Trademark is irrelevant to use of an image at Wikipedia. See, for example, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, AT&T, McDonalds and thousands of other articles containing trademarked images.
- As for copyright, works published in the US before 1923 are not protected by copyright, period. (See WP:PD.) If this medal was published in the US before 1923, it is not protected by copyright for Wikipedia purposes no matter what assertion the Nobel people make. And if it's not protected by copyright, it's a free image, and no fair use rationale is required.
- Similarly, permission is not required for a free image. -- But|seriously|folks 01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, your comment is entirely misleading: the design of the Nobel medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation. The use of the image is strictly restricted by its registered trademark and copyright (both): re: use of trademark in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos: the image itself is a registered trademark/logo and it is not being used in an infobox for Nobel Foundation; it is being used (misleadingly) in Nobel Prize. The photograph that the user took is not being used in Nobel Foundation as a trademark image; it is being used in the infobox in Nobel Prize as an illlustration of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, where that image is not relevant. It is not within fair use in Nobel Prize and its licensing statement is misleading. I do not appreciate being told that I should stop bringing up something that is entirely germane to the problems posed by the posting of this image. The derivative work is publishing an image whose use is restricted by its registered trademark. There is no way around that, much as those verbal gymnastics are attempting to do. They are simply wrong-headed attempts to skirt the notices on the Nobel site. Wikipedians do not have the license to do that. Wikipedia has to operate in the same world of laws as other publications (online and in print). (Notice that the MoS (trademarks) is a "guideline" not a "policy" in Wikipedia, and that the word "may" is used in the section on use of graphic logos; moreover, the user claims that s/he is not using the image as a logo; it is being used as an illustration in the infobox in Nobel Prize; as it is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation (its Peace Prize), it is not even reasonable to include it in the infobox for Nobel Prize; doing so is in violation of the MoS guidelines as well as fair use criteria in Wikipedia. The claims otherwise are simply inventions with no basis in Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. --NYScholar 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [The image page category is currently including "non-free image" for good reason. --NYScholar 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]
- You didn't address the many other trademarked images on Wikipedia, nor have you cited a Wikipedia policy that restricts the use of trademarked images to illustrate an article. And, per WP:CIVIL, please stop attempting to characterize my actions and stick to the issue at hand. -- But|seriously|folks 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines directly say that trademarked images should not be used to illustrate the main text of an article and they should not be in infoboxes that are not in articles for the company of the trademark; and that they only "may" be permissible; the Nobel Foundation clearly restricts and prohibits use of its image of the Nobel medals (even with written permission). E.g, the Encyclopedia Britannica features "Nobel Foundation" under the images, indicating that its use of the registered trademarked images are with permission and that is because it has written permission to feature the images of the Nobel medals in its articles about the Nobel Prizes. Wikipedia does not have that permission and it should not be featuring the image contrary to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. I suggest that the above users read the policies, guidelines, and Nobel Foundation notices (its pdf notice in terms of service) more carefully. --NYScholar 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [There are also other concerns re: the Imperial War Museum conditions of use being violated; Crown copyright pertaining to images of its holdings, that I have added to the image talk page. Please consult it. --NYScholar 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Once again, your comment is entirely misleading: the design of the Nobel medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation. The use of the image is strictly restricted by its registered trademark and copyright (both): re: use of trademark in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos: the image itself is a registered trademark/logo and it is not being used in an infobox for Nobel Foundation; it is being used (misleadingly) in Nobel Prize. The photograph that the user took is not being used in Nobel Foundation as a trademark image; it is being used in the infobox in Nobel Prize as an illlustration of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, where that image is not relevant. It is not within fair use in Nobel Prize and its licensing statement is misleading. I do not appreciate being told that I should stop bringing up something that is entirely germane to the problems posed by the posting of this image. The derivative work is publishing an image whose use is restricted by its registered trademark. There is no way around that, much as those verbal gymnastics are attempting to do. They are simply wrong-headed attempts to skirt the notices on the Nobel site. Wikipedians do not have the license to do that. Wikipedia has to operate in the same world of laws as other publications (online and in print). (Notice that the MoS (trademarks) is a "guideline" not a "policy" in Wikipedia, and that the word "may" is used in the section on use of graphic logos; moreover, the user claims that s/he is not using the image as a logo; it is being used as an illustration in the infobox in Nobel Prize; as it is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation (its Peace Prize), it is not even reasonable to include it in the infobox for Nobel Prize; doing so is in violation of the MoS guidelines as well as fair use criteria in Wikipedia. The claims otherwise are simply inventions with no basis in Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. --NYScholar 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [The image page category is currently including "non-free image" for good reason. --NYScholar 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]
- I've provided plenty of justification for deleting the image from Wikipedia; I have no more time to devote to this. The image is currently under review. --NYScholar 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- NYScholar:
- (1) You seem to be confusing Wikipedia's policy on copyright with WP's policy on trademark. The restrictions you quote are about copyrighted images, not trademarked images. As BSF has explained, WP is perfectly at liberty to use trademarked words, logos etc, so long as there is no danger of consumer confusion. WP's trademark policy can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).
- (2) Copyright law. EN-Wikipedia follows the laws pertaining in the United States; specifically, in the state of Florida. Whether the Nobel medal design is still copyright in the European Union (which in fact it is) is irrelevant. In the United States the medal design, being published there before 1923, is now out of copyright.
- (3) There is no copyright held by the IWM -- they did not make the image. It is also not from their website. And WP has no contract with them, implicit or explicit, which could be contravened.
- In short: there is no copyright in this design in the United States. Nor is the trademark issue a problem. And flooding this page doesn't change that. Jheald 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this also mean that the images of the medals on the Nobel Foundation website are no longer copyrighted in the US and can be used in WP? –panda 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Nevermind -- the Nobel Foundation holds a more recent copyright on the photographs (derivative works) since they took them. –panda 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I repeat: "*Please consult Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG and Talk:Nobel Prize for the dispute about this image of the medal in the photograph Image:DSCN0732.JPG in Nobel Prize's infobox, which appears to be a violation of copyright and trademark of the Nobel medal image of the Nobel Foundation, and fair use criteria of Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)": that pertains to both trademark and copyright, both of which are related to the design of the Nobel medal as clearly stated on the Nobel Foundation's webpages; the use of trademarked images (e.g., company and organization logos) has specific restrictions according to U.S. and international laws governing trademarks (they are linked on my current talk page--for over a year) and also has specific criteria (guidelines and policies) to follow in Wikipedia (trademark is linked via Wikipedia:Trademarks and Copyright via WP:Copyright [with related links throughout]; see also WP:Non-free content). Wikipedia takes a very conservative approach to both copyright and fair use, and it states that. When in doubt, Wikipedia says delete the image. That is the case here. The image in question is not properly inserted where it is (infobox in Nobel Prize), its licensing is deceptive, the "derivative work" uses a design that is currently both trademarked and copyrighted (the image of Alfred Nobel in profile on the medals featured on its website as its trademarked logo and throughout as illustrations of the medals, notably the very same Nobel Peace Medal in the derivative altered photograph); the image is too close to the original design to be claimed to be the original work of the photographer (User:Anubis3/the uploader); the references in the summary and license are awkward and inaccurate; the uploader states that s/he doesn't think that the Nobel Foundation would give permission for the use of this photograph in Wikipedia. This is not "flooding" the page; these are legitimate concerns, and the statements made and other implications suggesting that they are not legitimate concerns are uncivil. I have no further time to address these concerns. I have made them clear and properly linked to the "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" and "Copyright The Nobel Foundation" (with the symbols) showing that these registrations are currently in force. 1923 has nothing to do w/ anything; that it does is a fabrication. --NYScholar 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- NYS: however much you continue with this blathering, it will have no credibility, unless you respond to the fundamental point which has been put to you. Namely, that since the design was known in the United States before 1923, it can have no current U.S. copyright. Now, can you for once tell us straightforwardly what part of that simple assertion you disagree with? Put up or shut up. Jheald 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Warning to the above user: WP:CIVIL. An administrator has removed the image from Nobel Prize infobox. --NYScholar 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) I should take that as a refusal to respond, should I? Jheald 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- NYScholar, please stop filling this page with repetitive nonsense. Furthermore, this issue has already been established whether or not the image has been removed temporarily by a new admin. aNubiSIII (T / C) 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. My two cents:
- NYS, posting long essays essentially makes your argument seem like an argument of content than of value of the argument.
- You have failed, from what I can see, to address the points of both BSF and Anubis3. Arguing that a turd is a pterodactyl doesn't make it anything more than a turd.
- I removed the image on request of NYS. That does not mean I am adverse to any admin reverting me - I will not edit-war over an image.
- There is no special note in Wikipedia:Copyrights with regards to Europe, and Wikipedia:Public domain explicitly states in its header Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States and In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain. This means that if the medal was first struck a priori that date, it is public-domain in the United States.
- Public Domain also states in its footnotes Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1, 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S.
- NYScholar, please stop filling this page with repetitive nonsense. Furthermore, this issue has already been established whether or not the image has been removed temporarily by a new admin. aNubiSIII (T / C) 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that you had to go to all this trouble to reply without seeing what I spent scores of hours working out in the other image where the "public domain" template is still inaccurately posted. These images posted by the uploaders [the matters in dispute] are not "in the public domain" according even to both Public domain and Wikipedia:Public domain, in my reading of all this material and the copyright laws and the full talk pages of the images. I have updated the image page for the other image accordingly, to help people to follow the history of the trademarks and copyrights by the Nobel Foundation over images of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals. The symbols are there. See October 21 entry in WP:PUI page (October 21); links are in Image:Nobel_medal_ dsc06171.jpg (same and even worse problems, given the false template by another user) and Image Talk:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg. (Detailed fair use rationales are required by Wikipedia for each and every use of any of these images which are "Derivative works" whose images still do derive from the 'Nobel Prize(R) Medals and the Nobel Foundation's (the "author" of record) still-copyright-protected designs of those images.) ... [see below] --NYScholar 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- These copyright and trademark issues (relating to "non-free use" and "fair use", or not) are extremely-complex matters requiring extensive expertise with intellectual property legal issues; the recommendations in Public domain, WP:Public domain and pages relating to "non-free use", WP:PUI, and WP:Copyvio, etc. are to consult legal experts in resolving such complex matters in Wikipedia. The uploaders of the image in question has claimed "fair use"; that is in part disputed by me and others, but I've provided potential fair use rationale for starters to help to resolve these matters; the "public domain" templates being used in the above linked image (dsc06171.jpg) is inaccurate (wrong); the image was uploaded in 2005 not prior to 1923; same for this one that you are talking about; the "derivative work" is the image being "used" in Wikipedia, not some other image. Copyrights and trademarks in force stil pertain to these 2005 and 2007-uploaded (published) images created by Wikipedians themselves using copyright-protected (non-free) content owned by the Nobel Foundation. What is being "licensed" in Wikipedia (falsely) is an image uploaded [created/published] in 2007 by Anubis3 and in the case of dsc06171.jpg closely-related images uploaded [created/published] in 2005 and 2007 by 2 other users; see my talk page archive 16 as well for reply by the original uploader of that image. I'm offline to get some much-needed rest after all this. I can't take any more time w/ it at all. Please see the "N.B." box on my current talk page. --NYScholar 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- NYS, you need to realize that you're so far deep in left, the hotdog vendors are wondering why you've got a uniform and a mitt on. Your arguments only bolster my fifth point, because the Nobel Foundation is using both the copyright AND the registered trademark, and since it is known the first was struck before 1923, your argument now has a hole that's letting in a whole lotta water. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Re: I can't take any more time w/ it at all. That's like the fifth time you've said that. But you can't get away from it. This thread has you wrapped around its finger and you cannot escape. You've made 50 of the last 80 edits to this page. You will keep adding repetitive, lengthy and consecutive posts until the issue is concluded or until you drop from exhaustion. And if the powers that be decide that you are incorrect, you will start a new flurry of posts in a new forum. I'm sorry, but this is your current reality. Accept it. -- But|seriously|folks 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I have been told it, with 3 dimensional objects, there are two separate copyrights in the US.
- The object itself has a copyright. In this case, since the first cast of this medal was before 1923, it appears the copyright on the original object has expired in the US. (In the same way, David (Michelangelo) is no longer copyrighted). If, however, each medal is considered a separate work, it might matter when this medal was struck.
- The photographer has a copyright, because of a legal precedent. In this case, it appears the photographer has agreed to release their copyright to the public domain. (In the same way, if I photograph the statue of David, I gain a new copyright on my photo, but may license the photo as I see fit).
- Unless one of those two bullets is incorrect, or there is a third copyright concern I have missed, the claim of public domain does seem correct. I would appreciate any specific comments about the two bullet points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have put the image back in; it is becoming incredibly clear to me that NYS's arguments have no basis in law or policy. He's simply been reiterating his points, which all of us here have defeated at least once apiece, which suggests to me he's either unfamiliar with copyright laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is based) or he's conflicted. The medal was first struck a priori 1923 and was registered with regards to US law (Registration + Copyright + before 1923 = PD); the photographer released his work for use under the GDFL; any copyright situations with regards to the medal are thus nullified. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!) about this image. They responded:
- "This is the most hectic time of year. We will not be able to get back to you immediately."
So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. (Also cross-posted to Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg.) –panda 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Panda: Please see the comment about the impropriety of the e-mail correspondence by another user referring to Wikipedia Foundation correspondence re: Nobel Prize (R) Medal images. Thanks. It is currently in my current talk page, but I'll eventually be archiving it in Archive 16. So look for it in both places. (Under these circumstances, this image and others whose copyright status is in dispute should not be put into articles in Wikipedia. Please try to find the correspondence ticket in question. (I don't know how to do that.) Thanks. --NYScholar 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing wrong with individual editors contacting copyright holders to request permission. It's done all the time, and it's actively encouraged at WP:COPYREQ. -- But|seriously|folks 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- People who want to know what the previous correspondence with Wikipedia Foundation is can access it, however that is done. (I don't know.) --NYScholar 22:01, 24 October 2007 (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.
October 26
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolution: Images have been deleted & article updated SkierRMH 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Album covers in a discography. 80.202.107.43 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Album covers are allowed in the Isotope 217 discography section according to fair-use guidelines because there are not seperate articles for each album. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:FU#Unacceptable_images #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.107.43 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- The IP editor is right - album covers in a discography are a relatively well settled issue now. As the guideline says, they aren't used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:12, 29 October 2007 (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.
October 29
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolution: Appropriate mention in article & correct fair use added to image. SkierRMH 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kindly review this image, Image:Southern Leyte Subang Daku River.png. I have stated my rationale in the image description page. Thank you. --Britand&Beyonce (talk•contribs) 07:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the flood was an historic event, and described in the article, then you are right this would be a good picture. But the article just uses this picture to illustrate "topography". There is no claim that the flood drew great attention (the article just says "after a heavy rain"). Compare this to the mudslide picture, which is accompanied by some text about the mudslide. I would say that, for the purpose that this picture serves, it is replaceable in this article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I will create a section or part of that topographical section so that the image will not be doomed for deletion. --βritandβeyonce 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, just recently added the info about the issue on flood. Please visit to qualify my rationale. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- The added text makes it much more clear that the flooding issue is relevant; the image accompanies that text, and this sort of use appears to have general acceptance. The one lingering issue in my mind is to identify what year this photo was taken. That would add meaning to the reader by allowing them to identify which flood caused this damage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed it already. Now, would you please, if possible, delete the tag in the image page. I think my reasons already passed the criteria. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it's done. Thanks. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:42, 5 November 2007 (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.
November 4
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Moved to WP:PUI#Image:Mbta-logo.svg
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolution: Non-"flagged" image replaced with appropriate image & fair use added. SkierRMH 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As amazon.com makes more and more books searchable, the trademarked "Search Inside" banner is beginning to pop up on images copied from there. Would like a confirmation that the "TM" on the "Search Inside" takes this specific image out of the fair use category all together. As an additional question, what would be the status of a cropped image that simply has the remnants of the orange arrow? Albeit that's a pretty 'lame' image (though not as bad as some I've seen ;) , but I'm not sure if even that small part of the "Search Inside" banner would exempt an image from fair use.SkierRMH 22:58, 4 November 2007
- The arrow doesn't affect the legal ability to use the image. But in my opinion it does make the image unsuitable for use. We could cut the "search inside" words off the top, but just finding a better image would be more helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- And it turns out to be easy to find better imags: just click the "look inside this book" link and you get a much better cover image. It does have 'copyrighted material' watermarked across the top, but this is relatively subtle and I think isn't of much concern. The only issue is that the version on Amazon is too large for our nonfree content guidelines. So I uploaded a new version of this image, scaled down to 33% of the image on amazon.com. I think this should resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- New image has been marked w/ fair use. SkierRMH 01:47, 15 November 2007 (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.
November 5
November 8
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolution: No proof it's not a screenshot, correct lisc. & rationale used. SkierRMH (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be an image capture taken by the user. --EndlessDan 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- As the radio show is now simulcast in HDTV, would be a possible screenshot. Anything specific that leads to the idea that it might not be? SkierRMH 01:53, 15 November 2007 (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.
November 11
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Three nonfree images on a stub article, apparently ignores WP:NFCC#3. The images themselves seem to have no explicit rationale for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The images Image:Ms cart1.jpg, Image:Fmm1.jpg, have been marked as "no fair use". The other image, Image:In-the-valley-all-was-still.jpg, is now listed here; only the author's name is mentioned in the article, there is no reference to the picture in the article, and only a non-descriptive caption. SkierRMH (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of images used in the same manner (e.g. surrealism on Wiki and I noticed none of you are there airing the same concerns) that serve as visual examples, with only a passing mention of the artist in the text. The images currently posted on the massurrealism article are relevant; Morris was among the original members and King apparently has been an active member for some time now. --LAgurl (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Images are slowly being cleaned up across the whole wiki. In this particular case, the article itself is barely a stub, which is why having three images seems excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm keeping my eye on surrealism Wiki and will expect to see you there. Essentially your position is the article needs to be longer and discuss more in depth about the images used?--LAgurl (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed it LAgurl, the questioning of the images usage is based on a minor technicality, or prejudice, or both. I wish I had this kind of time on my hands all the time to play Hall Monitor -Holgar K.--87.187.2.66 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The lack of a fair use rationale is a technicality, but not a minor one. But the issue here is the seemingly excessive use of three images on a very short article. WP:NFCC#3 requires use of nonfree images be minimal. It isn't enough that the image be discussed in an external link to the article - the article itself needs to give sourced commentary in order for us to use all three images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed it LAgurl, the questioning of the images usage is based on a minor technicality, or prejudice, or both. I wish I had this kind of time on my hands all the time to play Hall Monitor -Holgar K.--87.187.2.66 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm keeping my eye on surrealism Wiki and will expect to see you there. Essentially your position is the article needs to be longer and discuss more in depth about the images used?--LAgurl (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Images are slowly being cleaned up across the whole wiki. In this particular case, the article itself is barely a stub, which is why having three images seems excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of images used in the same manner (e.g. surrealism on Wiki and I noticed none of you are there airing the same concerns) that serve as visual examples, with only a passing mention of the artist in the text. The images currently posted on the massurrealism article are relevant; Morris was among the original members and King apparently has been an active member for some time now. --LAgurl (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are also no sources on 2 of them. I have reduced the number of non-free images to one. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:46, 17 December 2007 (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.
November 14
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I think having this image in the Salvatore Lo Piccolo article is a violation of WP:NFCC#3. The uploader disagrees. Please see also the image's talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The image is relevant to the article. I added an explanation why in the article on Salvatore Lo Piccolo itself. By removing the picture you are withholding useful information to the readers, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. - Mafia Expert 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh. Actually the other two images are also problematic. One has no source, the other has been tagged as fair use/PD-Italy, when it probably isn't. Funnily enough the photofit photo is the most likely candidate for fair use, since we observe that the photofit looks nothing like the man that was arrested. However - as it stands, I would probably say that all the images should be deleted. Megapixie 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the source of Image:Salvatore LoPiccolo.jpg, it may be {{PD-Italy}} since it looks old, but I can't find the date of its creation. Image:Salvatore Lo Piccolo.jpg is also tagged as {{PD-Italy}}, but it's clearly not. I guess it could be considered a {{mugshot}} since it was taken by the Italian police. Mushroom (Talk) 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh jeez, the image isn't even a photo. It's a police sketch of what they thought he might look like. Tagged as replaceable. The new photo is a crop from an AP photo, and I nominated it for deletion. The older b&w photo might be PD, however. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, well, the posse has gathered to hunt the terrible copyright violator. Why not delete the article as well? That way you are sure there are no copyright violations at all. Let my try to explain why I think it is important to keep all three of the images. I think it is important to identify the subject and the development of the effort to arrest him, as well as to show the development from and the difference with the photofit. I think that is sufficient reason for fair use. Fair use is there for educational purposes, which I think apply here. By the way, it is not clear whether the so-called AP photo is an AP photo. It might as well be Ansa, see: [13]. Or Reuters, see: [14] As you can see in the fair use rationale it is taken from Italian State Police site, which in my view makes it PD. Probably it is a police photo distributed by several photo agencies. See for instance the mugshot Image:Salvatore_LoPiccolo.jpg from the Italian police most wanted list, which appears as an Ansa photo in [15] (I have put a fair use rationale for this one on the talk page. Lo Piccolo was a fugitive since 1983, so probably it is in the PD - at least in Italy). I hope that this will convince you, but I am almost sure it will not. Your only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be deletion. - Mafia Expert 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. I've replied here, and I reckon all further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am always prepared to assume good faith, and I do not dispute that some copyright control is necessary. But there are two ways to do your job:
- 1. assume good faith yourself and make a positive contribution by trying to assist people to find the right fair use rationale or maybe even permission to use images;
- 2. deleting as much images as you can and harass contributors with red tape so that they give up and leave Wikipedia.
- Pick your choice. Did anyone object to the use of the three images? Apart from that fungus Mushroom, who is part of the copyright violation squad, I am sure nobody did. Or is the line of reasoning, we delete everything to avoid any objection. It seems the latter is the case. You start to sound like Mafia boss Totò Riina: "His philosophy was that if someone’s finger hurt, it was better to cut off his whole arm just to make sure." - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Recommendation: Keep. (Since the discussion gets dispersed I want to make sure there are sufficient arguments to keep Image:Lo Piccolo photofit.jpg - the original issue under review - as well as Image:Salvatore LoPiccolo.jpg and Image:Salvatore_Lo_Piccolo.jpg) As per WP:FUR: use is for nonprofit educational purposes and does not effect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. All three images are widely distributed on the internet and the potential copyright holders have not identified themselves clearly and/or do not financially depend on the copyright. WP:NFC: photos from a press agencies are not permitted unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The photos are discussed in the text and with some good faith and leniency might apply for above mentioned exception. Fair use: a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. I think this also applies. Unless you think Wikipedia has no scholarly purpose. I think there is sufficient leeway, in particular because the three images are discussed in the text in relation to each other. As for WP:NFCC#3: one of the image will not suffice, because the three are related and need to be kept together to show a history of images used to identify a dangerous criminal and the difficulties to do so. Also remember this: WP:NFC is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: See also Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 13#Image:Lo Piccolo photofit.jpg and the entry below it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (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.
November 16
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Removed from 1 article correct FUR added to other use. SkierRMH (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a book cover which has been used on an article which is not about the book itself. It has also been cropped. This doesn't appear to me to qualify as fair use. GlassFET 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cropping doesn't change anything. The use in the "Five Rites" article would seem to be okay, as the article seems to be mostly about the book. However clearly not fair use in the "Yoga Series" article. Megapixie (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Full cover uploaded. Fair use modified for book & for Yoga Series - Added explanation on the link between the book & the yoga exercised included therein. SkierRMH (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts are: doesn't really belong on the Yoga series article since it's just a summary. But what about moving Five Tibetan Rites to The Eye of Revelation. Is there any doubt about this book being the origin of the practice? GlassFET 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that the Yoga series isn't probably FU. Like your suggestion, but what about splitting out the "booklet" section from Five Tibetan Rites and making the article The Eye of Revelation specifically about the book and the Rites article about the exercises themselves? SkierRMH (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts are: doesn't really belong on the Yoga series article since it's just a summary. But what about moving Five Tibetan Rites to The Eye of Revelation. Is there any doubt about this book being the origin of the practice? GlassFET 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since there was no article on The Eye of Revelation, I made it an rd to Five Tibetan Rites. (Feel free to be bold in moving this to a better name if you prefer.) So the image belongs in the Five Tibetan Rites article for now. In no way does it pass our NFCC in Yoga series. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:43, 4 December 2007 (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.
20 November 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This image is claimed to be self-created and thus under GFDL, but it contains the copyrighted characters Nemo and Pierrot. Review please? -Malkinann (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a "Derivative" work (using that very loosely here as it's just a combination of two copyrighted works w/captions), should be replaced with individual images at best, with NFU-appropriate information added. If kept this way, copyright holder of both images must be noted, with the NFU-appropriate information added. Either way, GNU as "self" would not be appropriate here. SkierRMH (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that GNU is not appropriate here, but the fair use to demonstrate the basis for litigation seems reasonable. See [16], where the images appear in a newspaper discussing the case. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree. I've clarified the licensing on the image description page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There are fair use images in this article with a claim that the "critical commentary" in the article is sufficient to allow their use. The critical commentary is basically "he is in the movie". If this is the level of critical commentary that is allowed for screenshots to be used in articles about the actor, then any screenshot is fair game to be used as a fair use image in an article about the actor, and any album cover can be used as a fair use image in an article about the band. And this is a Featured Article! Corvus cornixtalk 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be three images currently on the page, two which are in question. The "infobox" image Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg is from the commons & tagged correctly. The two in question are Image:RedEye05.jpg and Image:Cillian Murphy - Brkft on Pluto.jpg. For both images there is no critical commentary in the article that relates specifically to the image's inclusion. I could see that the "Pluto" image could be included with a bit more commentary, given the nature of the film & the picture in question; but as it stands now, that's not the case. SkierRMH (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are two now, because one was deleted by an admin and is the subject of a WP:DRV discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we suspend the discussion for now because this is a fork of a discussion already taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Failure to grasp the significance of images of actors' fictional roles. That discussion, if resolved, will settle the underlying policy question of when and if we allow non-free screen shots of dramatic productions to be used in articles about the actors involved. Any resolution here would be premature, and any comments made before right now may be impertinent after the policy is decided. Further, carrying on a deletion review and a FUR at the same time risks contrary results to the exact same issue. In the meanwhile, it's clear we don't need critical commentary on the images themelves; commentary on other things portrayed in the images will suffice. Based on my understanding of the policy I would say Keep all images on the merits, because commentary on the actor's role portrayed in the image qualifies. I can explain further if this discussion proceeds.Wikidemo (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Corvus misrepresents the commentary for the two current FU images -- he says there is only "he was in the movie" commentary in the article. For these two images, one for his role in Red Eye, and one for Breakfast on Pluto, I'd like to offer selected quotes from article; the critical commentary is particularly detailed for the latter role, for which Murphy received more acclaim.
- 2005 was the year that Cillian Murphy won wider recognition, first for two high-profile villain roles: Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in the thriller Red Eye. ... In Wes Craven's Red Eye, Murphy starred as an operative in an assassination plot who terrorizes Rachel McAdams on an overnight flight. New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis asserted that Murphy made "a picture-perfect villain" and that his "baby blues look cold enough to freeze water and his wolfish leer suggests its own terrors."[35] ... The New Yorker's David Denby wrote, "Cillian Murphy, who has angelic looks that can turn sinister, is one of the most elegantly seductive monsters in recent movies."
- In late 2005 (early 2006 in Europe), Murphy starred as Patrick "Kitten" Braden, a transgendered Irish orphan in search of his mother, in Neil Jordan's dramedy Breakfast on Pluto, based on the novel of the same title by Patrick McCabe. Murphy had auditioned for the role in 2001, and though Jordan liked him for the part, The Crying Game director was hesitant to revisit transgender and I.R.A. issues. For several years, Murphy lobbied Jordan to make the film before the actor became too old to play the part. In 2004, Murphy prepared for the role by meeting with a transvestite who dressed him and took him clubbing with other transvestites. Taking notice of the group's quick wit, Murphy attributed it to their constantly having to respond to insults from prejudiced people around them.[15]
- Against Breakfast on Pluto 's kaleidoscopic backdrop of 1970s glitter rock fashion, magic shows, red light districts and I.R.A. violence, Murphy transforms from androgynous teen to high drag blond bombshell. The San Francisco Chronicle's Ruthe Stein said of his performance, "Murphy projects enormous energy onscreen, as he's already shown in 28 Days Later... and Red Eye. He's supremely well cast as the androgynous Kitten ... [and] smoothly makes the transition from broad comedy to drama. He delivers Kitten's favorite line, 'Oh serious, serious, serious!' with the full implications of its dual meaning."[39] While even lukewarm reviews of Breakfast on Pluto still tended to praise Murphy's performance very highly,[40] a few critics dissented: The Village Voice, which panned the film, found him "unconvincing" and overly cute.[41]
- ...A late 2005 Back Stage feature labeled Murphy "a chameleonic performer, a character actor trapped in a leading man's bone structure."[2]
- This is just "he was in the movie"? I think not. This is clearly critical commentary. The images' fair use rationales were written with the assistance of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and a member of WikiProject Fair use. They made it through the article's multiple reviews, including a successful FAC but two and a half weeks ago, where the rationales were commented on positively. The images depict not Murphy as a person, but his work as a performer portraying a fictional character in a visual medium, used in an article that provides critical commentary on both roles. Discussion over this fair use has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and Talk:Cillian_Murphy, but there is no consensus for removal of the images. Despite this, today Corvus tried to recall the article's FA status over these three images, an impulse that seems inexplicably over the top and very disrespectful of months of work on the part of me and the many reviewers who attended to all aspects of this article, not just three FU images. --Melty girl (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:
- The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:
- [A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....
- In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
- I see the bolded phrases to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - That's a not unreasonable analysis of the fair use of the images. It's clear to me at least that the images qualify for fair use here; in other words there is no copyright infringement. However, one of several issues is whether the images satisfy Wikipedia's more stringent standards of non-free image use. There are other issues, e.g. whether we need to change or refine the standards in light of this issue, and the degree of deference we give to the review already done on the images in connection with the featured article candidacy. I won't repeat my opinion here but perhaps this can help lay out the issues.Wikidemo (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see the bolded phrases to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion of the actors appearance in these roles passes WP:NFCC#8. There are only two non-free images, and they show him in very different roles, passing WP:NFCC#3. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (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.
23 November 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image:Cheicon.jpg etc.
Marked for deletion due to a missing fair use rationale; however, I believe it could be acceptable due to its iconic status, so I am listing it here for review in which articles it should be used, and for the rationale to be written.
Another user attempted to mark it with the following explanation:
- Cuba is not signatory to the Berne convention; see Alberto Korda's copyrights claims for the photograph as conditional Conditional (Free) use, thereby restricting subsequent commercial claims, or claims not challenging the free use condition:
- {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|it is used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara".}}
As far as I know, a) Wikipedia copyright policies ask to respect copyrights of all countries, and b) asking the image to be used "it is used "to propagate the memory of Che Guevara" is not an acceptable restriction. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are a few versions of this photo that I've seen floating around, most (or all?) of which of which are linked at Che Guevara (photo), but I never really bothered to act on them. With the restriction you mentioned, we can't really consider these images to be free. But the original photo is fairly iconic, so I think that we could keep and appropriately tag as non-free Image:Famousphotoche.jpg and Image:Cheicon.jpg.
- However, we should get rid of a few other versions as unnecessary fair use. Image:Che.svg is a Wikipedian-created derivative work. It's clearly unnecessary, and it's placed only on user pages and in photo galleries, anyway. I don't really see any reason to keep Image:Che.jpg, either, though I know it's been on User:El C's user page for quite a while.
- Also note that the Commons gallery of Che Guevara images doesn't display the iconic photo in question due to copyright issues. At the top of the page is a link to a previous deletion discussion. -- RG2 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- On another note, the license restriction, although fairly bizarre: "to propagate the memory of Che Guevara", would hold true for any possible usage of the image (notice, it doesn't specify any details about how he should be remembered). Any recognizable image of anything at all could be said to "propagate its memory", so I don't really see how that would affect licensing... except for the licensing statement, of course, which might be taken as subtle propaganda. Just my 2 cents, Storkk (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, this is a funny one. Korda is "not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world." Now, WikiMedia cares about social justice, but I don't think their interpretation of it necessarily matches Korda's, and Jimbo Wales is on record condemning Che's legacy as one of "death and destruction"... but then, it's not Jimbo's site, it's not even really WikiMedia's since contributors retain copyright... I'm thinking this is a legal minefield and that Korda's statement has to be dismissed for purposes of WP:NFC.
- That being said, this version is certainly an "iconic historic image". Anything that's on ten million T-Shirts is a unique historic image. My friend has a T-Shirt with the Che image, and underneath it says, "I have no idea who this is." <eleland/talkedits> 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I want that shirt. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- On another note, the license restriction, although fairly bizarre: "to propagate the memory of Che Guevara", would hold true for any possible usage of the image (notice, it doesn't specify any details about how he should be remembered). Any recognizable image of anything at all could be said to "propagate its memory", so I don't really see how that would affect licensing... except for the licensing statement, of course, which might be taken as subtle propaganda. Just my 2 cents, Storkk (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a free image -- the restriction given is not compatible with the GFDL. It is acceptable to use under our WP:NFC policy, though, since the image is certainly iconic and non-replaceable. However it will have to be removed from userspace. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I clarified the licensing on the image description page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:37, 17 December 2007 (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.
28 November 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image was removed from NFU page SkierRMH (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlin is illustrated not only by a Public Domain image, Image:Marlin.png, but also by the "Fair Use" Image:Oldmansea_petrov.jpg. IANAL, but it seems to me that the argument for including Image:Oldmansea_petrov.jpg is exceedingly weak, especially since a PD illustration is already available. I mistakenly removed the image from the article, having looked at the image page, but not having seen the last Fair Use entry for Marlin. I put it back, pending a review. A {{dfu}} didn't seem the right tag, as the image is used Fair Use on other articles. --Storkk (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fairly clearly not fair use, especially as no commentary on the image was being made in the article; I've removed it from the article. Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, fails our NFCC here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
i am unsure as to whether these two screenshots (Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg) used on Undercover Mosque comply with WP:FUC#3a. that is because there is already another fair use image, Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg, being used as the lead image. the rationale for using all three images is the same; that is, to depict the documentary. as the aim of depicting the documentary (the necessitating factor in justifying use of non-free material in this case) is fulfilled by Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg, the other two images (Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg) cannot invoke the same rationale. as such, i think the images' claim to fair use is invalidated due to their being redundant (see 3a). my interpretation might be wrong, so it'd be nice for some feedback from more experienced heads. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per the discussion on the article's talk page, the two other images combine with the first to be examples of the statements of three separate clerics, as listed in the article text. Furthermore, Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg has the added benefit of explicitly mentioning Jews in its caption, something the first article does not do. Thirdly, one screen capture shows a close-up of a cleric and another shows a wide-angle view of the audience, demonstrating the size of the groups at each of these gatherings. Since one picture does not capture the elements of antisemitism, group size, and clerical close up, I think multiple images are warranted. -- Avi (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- As "examples of the statements of three separate clerics", the images can be replaced by text (quotes), and so fail NFCC#8. One photo adequately conveys the content and tone of the documentary; having three fails NFCC#3. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've listed 2 of the 3 images at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_17#Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and the entry below it. Further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (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.
29 November 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
_SC.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Bringing this here to get an opinion on whether this is replaceable or not. While "normal" notable adults tend to make appearances where a free photo could be obtained, I'm not sure how true that is for children. Thanks --Pak21 (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
_SC.jpg){kind=link}
- According to the Wikimedia licensing resolution, Wikipedia "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Children are individuals too. Now if you can provide a source that says this individual is a hermit, never available for photography, then this could be an exception -- but there is no age exception for NFCC#1. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reasoning/rationale is shown on the image talk page. The basic bottom line is that even now a new photo being taken would not be representative of the person's primary notability, and thus a new photo would not be attainable. See talk page for (excrutiatingly) long explanation. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I think it should be noted that this picture is not being used on her own article but on the List of Kid Nation participants article, if that makes any difference. Ospinad (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reasoning/rationale is shown on the image talk page. The basic bottom line is that even now a new photo being taken would not be representative of the person's primary notability, and thus a new photo would not be attainable. See talk page for (excrutiatingly) long explanation. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've listed the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 17#Image:Laurel McGoff .28Kid Nation.29 SC.jpg. All further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (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.
4 December 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Probably fair use in Dave Brown (UK cartoonist), given that this particular image is by far the most significant aspect of Brown's notability. However, I contend that it clearly fails WP:NFCC as used in Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where it is used as a mere example of disputed commentary on the issue and could very easily be replaced with some other example. It is an image whose subject happens to be a war, which has not achieved iconic status as a representation of the war, used to illustrate an article on the war. In any case, an editorial cartoon is not "media coverage". <eleland/talkedits> 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it fails NFCC#8 in articles not about the artist (or the cartoon itself). – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Closed. Image has been removed from articles that do not meet the NFCC. Non-admin closure. -Nard 21:31, 21 June 2008 (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.
7 December 2007
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Use of a Life magazine cover for the article Sino-Indian War, uploaded by User:Idleguy. It's true that freely licensed images may be hard to obtain, but this does seem to be clearly in breach of both WP:FU#Unacceptable images #4 and #8. The photo merely shows an Indian soldier so is not especially informative about the war, and the magazine issue or cover is not discussed at all in the article. The "unacceptable images" list at WP:FU contains provisions about: 4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). 8. A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate; see the Demi Moore article. The image seems to fall into both prohibited categories. The current fair use rationale is:
- The cover has been uploaded to show some image in the Sino-Indian War which doesn't have a single image, let alone fair use. Also the image shows the portrayal of the war in the western media.
- A cursory glance at the article reveals that there are no photos (just maps) on such an important war and the fact that the image is one that serves a dual purpose, viz. to show a soldier from the war for an article bereft of photographs and the coverage of the war in the western press, which is also of equal importance. Further, it would not be possible to produce an article cover in any manner, except under a fair use tag, which is what it is tagged under. The images on the Chinese side were not released under any free to use license and the Indian military too holds copyright to the images, and until I get any free to use images, only fair use is applicable as free images cannot be reasonably found, nor created per policy of WP. Moreover, several articles allow 1-2 pertinent magazines images for use in an important war's images, like the Six Day War which also uses a Life magazine cover.
I don't think that this rationale takes the image outside the scope of criteria #4 or #8, although the uploader may disagree! Purgatorio (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a clear case of using a magazine cover to illustrate the subject, and not the magazine or the article. The image is not "iconic" and fails WP:NFCC#8. You are correct that counter-example #4 at WP:NFC is perfectly analogous to this case. You should list this image at WP:IFD. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I nominated the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_17#Image:62_war.jpg. Further discussion should go there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (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.
December 9
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Taken to PUI SkierRMH (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Bringing these here for the following reasons: 1) The alleged source's opening page [17] states "For Editorial and Press Use Only" and various sub-pages state "Copyright free for editorial purposes only." 2) There is no direct link to either of these images, and they do not appear in the "Photos" section. 3) Both include trademark (Mitsubishi) 4) Uploader GalantFan has been asked to prove "I got permission..." claims thru OTRS, but has not done so - and was informed of the problems at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Press Release Photos from Mitsubishi. I do not believe that either of these images can be claimed as Public domain. SkierRMH (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, these don't look PD to me. You should probably list them at WP:PUI. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (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.