Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 10

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Latest comment: 13 years ago by VernoWhitney in topic File:Kingkiss.jpg
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Images at Gordion Furniture and Wooden Artifacts

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}}

These images were uploaded for fair-use in Gordion Furniture and Wooden Artifacts by the creator. After some were tagged for missing fair-use rationale, the uploader added detailed rationales, then queried me about their use. (See brief discussion at User talk:CactusWriter#Thank you and copyright query.) I stated that most of the images would fail criterion #8 for contextual significance -- IMO, there would be no significant detriment to a reader's understanding of the subject without many of the photos. Some are also repetitive. I have found only three which have been published -- here -- but the uploader states the others have been published. It was also pointed out that an owner may not use fair-use claims for their own photos, but rather must release them under a free license. The uploader has stated that none of the images can be released under free license at this time. I'd appreciate other opinions on whether any, all or none of these images meets our non-free content criteria. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am the uploader and have made several changes since CactusWriter's comments about the images listed above. I have deleted several images from the article, and I have made versions of most of the others available through Wikimedia Commons; these include all the images listed above except the last five. The remaining images are four historical photos of the 1957 and 1959 excavations of Tumulus MM and W at Gordion, as well as the painting of the reconstruction of the funeral ceremony of the king buried in Tumulus MM, prior to the burial. The former are included by permission of the Gordion Project, University of Pennsylvania Museum, for which I have included the original photo designations and invoice number of the U of P Museum permission. The latter, the painted reconstruction, was published in Archaeology magazine, and I have changed the source to reflect this; I did not realize that this is what was meant by source. I hope that now I have satisfied all Wikipedia requirements regarding these remaining images. These images in particular are important to illustrate the article and do not, I believe, fail category #8. Thanks, CactusWriter, for your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

5 images remain out of 19 original. Since no other opinions have been voiced and the original issue was with regards to "many of the photos" and not all of them, this for now appears to be the case of de facto consensus. Obviously this can be revisited should the usability of the remaining images be questioned. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (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.

Multiple files in Punk Rock

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments12 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Requesting review of overuse and replaceability of nonfree files in the punk rock article. In general, punk rock is a very broad category that should require very few if any nonfree media files for illustration. In broad categories like these, tons of free media is almost always available, rendering nonfree media failing #1 very nearly without exception. Several editors on several occasions have noted the problems with these files, but one editor has repeatedly engaged in an edit war over cleanup. Additional opinions would therefore be most welcome on the following:

If the above list does not clearly show overuse, consider that as of this writing, the article uses nine free media files. Conversely, it uses 25 nonfree files—almost triple. When one takes a look at the Commons punk rock category and its subcategories, this is clearly unacceptable. We've got a whole ton of free media available to illustrate this subject with. We don't need a nonfree sound sample in every section. We don't need nonfree album covers to indicate significant bands—prose illustrating their significance with free photos of them will do just fine. We probably don't need any nonfree media at all, as I would bet you that for punk (probably especially for punk), CC-licensed and explicitly public domain material exists in abundance, allowing us to feature entire songs instead of just a clip. I would further venture a guess that many of the bands out there, if contacted, would be happy to if asked. Regardless, however, even if I'm dead wrong on that, the number of them used is tremendously excessive. Even if no nonfree material existed, we could demonstrate what punk sounds like with a sample or two. We don't have to have one for every major punk band. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has evidently not read the article, as he has misrepresented the use of the media he is calling into question. File:Ramones album cover.jpg, for instance, is not used simply to "show the impact" of the Ramones but (a) to illustrate one uniquely important album in the history of punk, whose significance is described at multiple points of the article and, even more specifically, (b) to support and explicate the description of the very important visual content of the cover of that record: "The cover of the Ramones' 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk." Similarly, the other images are not there merely to "show the impact" of the bands with which they are associated, but to illustrate the specific items in question, where in each case the visual content of the item is central to its significance.
As for the sound samples, they serve a purpose far beyond demonstrating "what punk sounds like"--as if punk even sounds like just one thing (again, evidence that the nominator simply hasn't bothered to read the article). They serve to explicate the various elements of punk, the genre's history, how it evolved, how it transformed, how it diversified. Yes, their presentation can be enhanced with more sourced discussion--I see where such discussion has already been added, it is based not on "reviews", as the nominator improperly suggests, but on analysis in high-quality sources. While useful free audio media could probably be found for the section of the article that deals with punk's recent history, there is no evidence that any such media exists for those portions of the article dealing with punk's emergence, early flowering, and development and diversification in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The sound clips clearly greatly enhance readers' understanding of the subject matter, they are not displacing free media (with the possible exception of the final section, as I said), and in the several years they have been in the article there has never been a single legal challenge to any of them. Their inclusion is completely in line with our fair use policy. DocKino (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
There is almost no reason to justify the use of sound files in conjunction with the history of punk; sound files are fine for distinguishing the different styles of punk, and this is where free media becomes important, because likely every style of punk can be reproduced from a free media. The history of punk would be about the bands and the people, songs and albums, but the reader does not need sound files to understand this aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was keeping an eye on this thread a couple months ago, waiting for someone, anyone, to raise specific policy problems with the specific non-free media used in the article to which I could intelligibly respond. Such problems were not raised and still have yet to be raised—evidently because all the media usage in fact meets policy. In addition, some of the more borderline items have in fact been removed and I have done extensive upgrading on the article and the critical commentary accompanying the media since this issue was raised last November—work that has been completely ignored in this thread, rendering it outdated and non-pertinent.
  • In sum, despite the series of vacuous, one-sentence !votes immediately above, this review has still not yielded any policy basis for removing a single one of the existing media items in the article, let alone all of them. I have previously stated that an FAR would be a sensible forum in which to address the media item by item, since that doesn't seem to be taking place here, but it appears that what is really called for is an RfC on the general issue of how much non-free media is acceptable in any given genre article, as the only discernible rationale given for the elimination of media in this instance is that there's "too much" of it. I see no basis at all for this in policy, but it appears some do--though they have articulated no intelligible case. Let's have a broad base weigh in, so we have clear, broadly accepted and understood standards for this and similar genre articles. I'll prepare an RfC and post it tomorrow.—DCGeist (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that a RfC to discuss this in relation to genre articles and policy is a good idea and may save us some pain in the future if we can establish what the basic parameters.--SabreBD (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not the policy, but the implementation that needs discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Seriously? People want to screw with Wikipedia's great punk rock article like this? To what end? I keep reading that there's free material that could do the same job as the sound clips and the few album covers in the article. Really? So where is it? Where's the free image of the Ramones that has the same historic impact and encyclopedia value of their first album cover? Let's see it! Where's the image that explains Oi! and generated as much media coverage and controversy as the cover of Strength Thru Oi!? We need to see this image!! "(I'm) Stranded" is the first ever punk record by a non-US band, with it's own distinctive style. You think some free clip from some Z-grade 2009 Middle American band can fairly represent that? Great! Let's hear that clip! Let's read the verifiable sources that support your claim of its relevance! (That is our policy, RIGHT?) Come on. Bring the goods.
  • Seriously, guys. What's going on here is truly insane. "One or two sound samples" can show what punk sounds like? Are you KIDDING? A: That's just wrong. B: Where the heck is that in the policy? I could just as well argue that we need one sound clip--just one, you know--for each of the hundred bands mentioned in the article. That's "minimal". Well, that's just as justifiable under our policy as claiming "one or two sound samples" can fairly represent a genre covering tens of thousands of bands. The most outrageous thing about what's going on here is it's real apparent, the guys who just decided they don't like the sound clips not only ignored what the policy says, they haven't even read the article or listened to the clips and how they each teach something different. Sad. Re yally sad on you, guys.-Know Your Product (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not every section of a broad-based article needs media at all. Your argument may well support nonfree media in narrower or band articles, but not in a broad-based one with free media available. It is not necessary that every facet of something have an illustration or media file. Replaceability only asks whether such media exists for the subject in general, and for punk rock, it certainly does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
How many things are wrong here? Over half the sections in punk rock actually have no nonfree media. You're just making up that definition of replaceability--that's got nothing to do with what the policy actually says, as I see many others are agreeing. And you still haven't come up with a single free clip that can replace any of the ones in the article. The whole premise and pursuit of this "review" violates how the system is supposed to work.-Know Your Product (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose but only because this seems to be a wholesale discussion of an article as opposed to individual NFC. The first one mentioned is an image that is in use on the article in question, but it is ALSO in use in another article. Deleting all based on "overuse" in a single article is overkill. — BQZip01 — talk 06:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

After two months of inactivity, it is clear that there is no consensus here. Specifically, there was no consensus for the deletion of all of the nominated files, and no other actionable proposal was made. Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

File:NES Metroid.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This non-free image is used in Metroid#History, where it appears as a thumbnail with the caption: "Metroid provides a thoroughly nonlinear gaming experience." The image doesn't add to this statement in any way, because it represents a relatively linear area (unlike the second screen of Brinstar, which not only has paths left and right but also down once bombs are obtained). Thus, it fails WP:NFCC criterion 8 for the above reasons. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the person who cares about video game articles; However, the fair use rational for this image is "To show the gameplay of the first incarnation in the series, and its similarity to games such as Mario Bros. but its stark aesthetic difference." - I agree that the current caption and this rationale are at odds, however it seems that the image would be well suited to remaining in the article if the caption was replaced with a more appropriate one and the history section expanded. It strikes me that for someone with as much knowledge of the series as you clearly have I would have thought you could [it] as easily as delete the image, by expanding the first paragraph of that article. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The caption of an image should not preclude whether or not it should be used in an article, particularly one where it is the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep in the article. Note that the image caption has been updated since this discussion was active. Thparkth (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments14 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This file is also up for deletion but because it was listed twice I have listed it here from here. It seems silly that it would be kept in one place but possible deleted in another place and I feel as if this is the right place for the discussion. Arguement orginally is that the image can be replaced and is not of fair use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion about this in the most recent deletion request. The plain fact is that it's a fair use image that cannot, at present, be replaced by a free image. One of the opponents of its use changed to "keep" after discussing the matter with that police department, which strikes me as a significant turn in the debate. If the issuers of the photo have no problem with its use, why should we? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless the image is released under a free license, which it does not appear to have been, then its use is subject to our non-free content criteria, whether or not "the issuers of the photo have no problem with its use"- for an image to be considered free, it has to be free for others, not just usable by Wikipedia. Regardless of whether it is replaceable, it is less than clear why it is essential readers know what the accused looks like in the article on the shooting; the usage fails NFCC#8 there and should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not 100% accurate bugs. I changed from "delete" to "keep, but the infobox usage is still not fair use, only critical commentary". The image can be easily replaced. --Errant (chat!) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is no fair use claim for the infobox - only to represent the arrest in the section about the arrest only. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting technical point. Please read Jimbo's comments which I linked to, below. I suspect he would agree with this narrower usage of the picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the FFD discussion as "no consensus", and so deletion via FFD would appear to be off the table, at least for now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I had posed a question to Jimbo Wales prior to the closure of the RFD, and I think everyone discussing this pic should read his interesting response:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The image is unsuitable for use in the infobox as a general illustration of what Loughner looks like. It has a FUR for the period of his arrest. I support the image here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's now embedded in the article. That seems reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, cool, I support closing this down and moving on, there at this time is no clear consensus policy driven support for inclusion in the infobox, this can and might change, but for now we should / could tidy up the supported rationals on the pic and wait for any likely new developments - I have the feeling that a commons compatible pic may be released by the US authorities. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So, how may places is this being discussed? I opined on the subject's talk page, ANI, and now here; we have a FUR and it is reasonable to include it in the infobox. Jack Merridew 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Simply having a FUR does not make it a legitimate one --Errant (chat!) 23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No indeed it doesn't and it was the mistaken claimed FUR that has caused a lot of the disruption. I rewrote it to a pretty good fair use claim but the uploader has reverted again. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
And I will re-assert that even the purported FU rationale fails WP:BLP with our critial commentary about the image being that someone from a single photograph, making a claim that it is evidence of a living person's "possible derangement" For gawds sake how is that still in the article???? Active Banana (bananaphone 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That, and, he seems quite alive to me. No need for nonfree media, even if making a free shot would be tough, it wouldn't be impossible. Surely he goes to and from court where photography would be possible, even if he's not permitted to be photographed in court. Replaceability just requires that replacement be possible, not that it be easy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Forum Shopping

This discussion should be closed or else all of the comments at the well-attended image deletion discussion should be included here as well.Crystal Balling that a free image will appear is in conflict with reality. After 30 years John Hinckley, Jr. has no free image. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not crystal balling, it is our explicit policy to make only one assumption; that a free image is possible to find for BLP's. "after 30 years" is a misrepresentation, Wikipedia has only been here for 10 years, and that page for nearly 8. Has anyone made a reasonable effort to find a free image for the page? It's not a "hot topic" any more, so I doubt it :) There is no rush over this, if it takes a month, a year, or more for someone to track one down that is simply not a problem... --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As to Mr.Grantevans2’s saying that the discussion should be closed, that’s not the way this forum works. The de-facto rule here seems to be that discussions are closed when they die out, when the subject file is deleted by some other process, or when there is a consensus to keep. I would say however that the discussion of the subject here is pointless: There is no prospect of consensus, and the forum does not close discussions for no consensus. —teb728 t c 10:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, we must all have run out of things to say about this by now, and the usage of the image has been trimmed back to one appearance in the Arrest section of Jared Lee Loughner, where it surely meets WP:NFCC#1. Time for a truce here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a fairly reasonable compromise. I am not usually a fan of compromise for compromise's sake, but, in that case, it clearly meets NFCC#1, and there is a strong case for it meeting NFCC#8 due to the explicit discussion of that mugshot. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess I have to take back my words about no prospect of consensus. I agree that the sourced commentary on his appearance in the mug shot makes the use in the arrest section fulfil NFCC 1 and 8. —teb728 t c 12:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. FUR and critical commentary. This is also an iconic image in its own right and should be kept even if free ones become available. Keep. --John (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of a free image and consensus of continuing conversation at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner the image has been orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Full Trash.png and File:Trash.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} These images were previously too high-resolution in light of paragraph 3b of the NFC policy (specifically, high risk of deliberate copyright infringement). Where can I ask an administrator to permanently remove the infringing content from the file history? The high resolution versions are still available in the file history, so to my understanding the Foundation is still actively infringing the copyright, even if they are now a bit harder to find. --hydrox (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's needed at all, at a higher resolution or lower. There are plenty of operating systems out there from which we can get a free trash can/recycle bin image, and indeed I see that's been done. These are entirely replaceable and already replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
They apparently provide examples in the article Recycle bin (computing), and as Mac OS X is fairly widely-used OS, I don't think they need to be entirely removed. As long as we use low-resolution versions in the article and don't distribute high-resolution versions, that is. --hydrox (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Images orphaned and deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (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.

More eyes needed on FFD

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} More input is requested on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 28#File:Nakayama-ritsuko-12th-ball.jpg. I'm asking here because the case has potential consequences beyond the individual file, as a precedent for potentially thousands of other images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FfD discussion closed. No further action necessary. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (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.

For the record, File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago43 comments9 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} For the record, what was the credible source to meet the burden of proof? USchick (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record 2

Closure was rushed and a out of of process. Rather than look over the entire thread and reading (or understanding) someone (again) re-purposed the discussion by asking a very wide question and than claimed "consensus" on it. Two hours? Seriously? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The decision was rushed because the photo was scheduled for deletion in 3 hours, March 22. Is this the standard of conduct for administrators? USchick (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I had begun reading and re-reading the discussion and reviewing the sources and various scattered conversations on user talk pages and elsewhere about an hour before Berean Hunter's new subsection. I did not consider the roll call for purposes of determining consensus. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the policy and how it pertains to this case? Or did you simply glance at it? USchick (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Was this image illegally obtained? Consensus says yes to that one. So, if so, than are the arguments that because this image exposed a corrupt govt Wikipedia can ignore any possible lawsuit ok? I don't see a consensus on that. How about if the govt no longer exists Wikipedia doesn't have to worry because a non-existent Govt won't sue us? Did you see any consensus on that? And I asked a series of questions yet zero answer/s on them - so certainly there was no consensus on those.
What was there a clear consensus on? Is the image under copyright? Yes. Was the image illegally obtained? Yes. Is the image graphic? Yes. Should that matter for NFCC material? No. Is Wikipedia Censored? No. Now how about some wider issues? Could the image itself have its own article? Mixed on that one but clearly consensus appears to fall into the feeling for some this is the most important image of 2011 and at least one person feels it is so iconic it will make the subject of the image Times "Man of the Year" - if that is considered a "yes" than consensus would be this image should have its own article. Would the image be acceptable for use in the 2011 Egyptian revolution? Not sure if there was a true consensus for that or not - it was discussed with some saying without this image the entire reason for the 2011 Egyptian revolution is missing. Others who did address it article by article seemed to say it was not really needed in that article. Would the image be acceptable for use in the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed? This now is where it starts to get varied. If you ask a wide question you get "Yes", but if you actually break it down you start to get mixed opinions that really need to be sorted out based on policy, not personal feelings or on recent events (which this still is - so, as I tried to explain with the Rodney King article, will look a bit different down the road than it does now. For example Monnriddengirl provided a link to a recent article entitled "the face that launched a revolution" as an example of why the image was needed in the article here - yet the article linked they to does not use the image itself. I also pointed out the same article points out other videos and images of other victims that have played a role in all of this. Masem, on the wider "consensus" issue, seemed to "agree" but when broken down prior they said text alone could describe also describe it. And that is part of the overall issue. Was there really a clear consensus on that? Looking back the old IFD editors who did not participate here said it was described with text fine, another editor agreed. The editor who made the nom said, in the archived discussion you linked to in the "consensus" summary above (and I had pointed out earlier), also said text was needed - but in a slight reverse of text already described it and said/asked that more text was needed to describe what the image actually showed. This also bring up a very important issue that was skipped over - could a free item serve the same purpose? At first it was presumed no, however thanks to both USchick and Moonriddengirl it is clear there are non-free images out there of protesters using the same image on signs and banners. So I did ask - if the this photo was so powerful it was used in protests to incite people than how better to illustrate that fact than with images showing protesters using it? If one looks there are free images of the 2011 Egyptian revolution - and if so many used this image than it stands to reason there would be free images that meet De minimis that could be used. As long as they were clearly marked as such, and that cropping only this image out would fall under a derivative, than NFCC 1 should have been discussed more. It was not, even after I raised the issue.
In any case - this entire thread turned into a huge CF and the closure just blended right in. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the close, obviously. I think the sources meet policy in a way that satisfies NFCC and the basic goal of improving the encyclopedia. I think Soundvisions raised very interesting questions that have more bearing on historical deletion discussions and future policy precedents, but don't really apply to this particular image. The close did appear premature--I didn't even !vote--but the discussion was very long and the central point, that the image was iconic and identified in RS and the article about Saeed, was very clear. I don't think there's anything to mediate here, since the deletion was based only on meeting NFCC and consensus is binding, at least for now. I suggest editors who oppose the image on other grounds join us at the Death of K.S. talk page to talk about improving the article. For the record, Soundvisions, my prediction was that Wael Ghonim, who hosted We are all Khaled Said on Facebook would be Time's Man of the Year. I'd like to see a list of your policy objections written up for future discussion. I think you're trying to explain all similar images as if they shared the same context when they have different contexts. Some things are unique. Some things are worth including. The question about the image being used by protesters, to me, is not an 'either' question, but an 'and' question. Both are useful additions to the article. One shows the autopsy photo, and the other shows what happened to it after it went through social networks and on the ground protests. Besides, if you take the image's origin seriously, than a photo in public of an already illegal image which we crop and upload still seems to have some problems. I don't take the origin issue as prohibitive, so it doesn't concern me, but I don't understand why it wouldn't bear on the scenario you described. I'm glad the image is in place and find it a natural and important contribution to the article. Our copyright mission is not compromised in any realistic way, and the article is improved significantly. Win, win. Ocaasi c 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: we don't usually !vote at NFCR. Look at the conversations above and in archives. Closures are based on conversations. That said, I appreciate the straw poll. It was good to see current standings of those who took part in it, and I think it was a good idea to try to draw conversation back to the core point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

You are all cordially invited to proceed here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-14/Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, unless anyone has a better idea. USchick (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a thorough reading of Wikipedia:Consensus, especially Wikipedia:Forum shopping, and Wikipedia:IDHT. The deletion of this image was overturned at deletion review and deferred to this forum. You may not agree with the outcome, but consensus does not require unanimous agreement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The deletion review was not based on Fair Use and is unrelated to the Non-free content review. The reason I am forced to continue this discussion elsewhere is because consensus is in direct violation of policy. Would a Wikipedia:Mediation Committee be more appropriate? USchick (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither is appropriate. Both forms of mediation are voluntary and non-binding, and I do not believe that you will ever accept anything other than the outcome you desire. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Please advise what is appropriate course of action when administrators disregard policy and gang up on editors who point it out. USchick (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators. It contains all the information you need to help you deal with it when administrators are disregarding policy and ganging up on you for pointing it out. That said, I'm still compelled to encourage you to consider that others may not regard the situation in quite that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the Forum shopping issue. The image was not sent here for discussion due to the DRV. I know we both know the thread is a massive CF (and should really be ignored and a new one with clearly defined goals at the start with zero tolerance for re-purposing things) but I did mention that this was sent to DRV because of An/i. The first IFd was valid, just not worded very well and the DRV was a lot of "not censored" "cyber "yelling" and it resulted in the image being restored because Wikipedia is not censored. Anything having to do with NFCC was simply ignored. The close at the DRV actually said to put it up for deletion again based on not meeting NFCC criteria, not to send it for a NFCC review. (unless you have a different reading No prejudice against renomination under NFCC than I do) It ended up here because of a copyright concern that was posted at copyright questions - it was moved here. Either way - this is going to be on ongoing issue. If the image is deleted than we will see the other side start forum shopping again for an overturn. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Illegal?

Someone just jumped the gun and did this claiming that there was a consensus here that the image was obtained illegally. I disagree that any such consensus exists here and moreover do not think that the image was obtained illegally. Just because the word "bribery" has been used does not mean that something illegal has happened. Not all forms of bribery are illegal. No Egyptian law concerning bribery has been cited and more importantly, it is not our place to assume guilt when no one has been charged with any such crime. Last time I checked, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody jumped any gun on that - take the time and read the above thread. Those who took the time to discuss the image in how it was first obtained the consensus was it was obtained illegally. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the time to read the above...a lot of time. Masem had concerns that it might be illegal...."there is a huge question mark on the legal issue". The point was never adequately addressed. No clear consensus was had on that point but you are free to use the same format that I used above to see if that is indeed what the participants feel is the consensus. I was never sold on the point that it was illegal.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I am concerned there's a legal issue, but to answer the question is very very difficult, maybe impossible, and thus as long as we're aware that if the image ever determined to be a legal problem we remove it, but for now, it's clear consensus agrees its an important image to keep and it meets NFCC otherwise. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Soundvisions1 has placed this on the file description twice since our consensus closed above claiming this was what was decided. Would you agree that was not clearly decided? I would agree if it was determined by proper authorities to be illegal then that might qualify.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree it wasn't adequately decided, and again, while I'm highly concerned about it, not enough to stop its use until proven 100% it was illegally taken. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I actually participated in this discussion a lot and I was one of the main people who voiced some concerns about how the image was contained - lets see - I discussed it and felt is was illegal. Masem discussed it and said it was illegal. Ocaasi discussed it and said it was illegal, USchick felt is was illegal. Silverseren did not directly address it. Smallbones did not address it. Wnt did not directly address the overall concerns I had raised (including the illegal issue) only saying "these sound like very important things to include, but I wasn't aware of them." Thparkth did not directly address how the original image was obtained (legal vs not legal) instead focusing on the rights feeling the concept only applied to images such as "through-the-window shots of celebrities" and not bodies in a morgue. Moonriddengirl approached the discussion from a different angle, much like Thparkth did, saying that Flordia allowed the exploitation of dead bodies. At this point the entire thread started to be re-purposed and comments made earlier were moved to later and later moved earlier - this is really were it all started to become a huge CF. The idea of how the image was contained (legal or illegal) became interwoven with "privacy rights", "personality rights" and "moral issues". Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Masem just voiced above...not declaring it was illegal. Others may have assumed it was illegal. As I said, you are free to try to clarify things by using a consensus format as to whether your edit to the description is in line with the consensus. We can wait 24-48 hours to let the other editors chime in about what they think.
Feeling something is illegal doesn't mean much. I haven't seen where any definite law has been broken. People saw "bribery" and assumed that this must mean "illegal". There are in fact legal bribes. The onus of proving that some law has been broken is upon those stating that it has. There haven't been any arrests for this has there? I believe it takes a judge's decision in this case to back the "illegal" argument as police arrests may be overturned and people declared innocent.
Again, it would be best to ascertain clearly in this matter what the other editors here are saying by asking them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg - new NFCC discussion

Berean Hunter would like to discuss one element of the above discussion. As it has already been closed and they did not participate in it this is a new discussion.

The issue:

How was the image first obtained? From the now closed discussion the concern from those who did discuss it is that it appeared to be obtained illegally by bribing an employee at a private facility. For discussion we define "private" as a location that is not open to the public.

Masem first raised the issue by asking: Could anyone, outside of any official capacity, go in and take a picture of the battered body? Was a special case being made to prevent photos of the body here? Not to take away from the victim's importance, but if this was any random body, would it have been possible to get a photo of the body, one that could be disseminated by the copyright owner without problems? After discussion they clariefied by saying If the photo could never legally have been taken, copyright is not an issue; the photo would be illegal.

Soundvisions1 tied the same idea into NFCC policy and used definitions already laid out at the Image use policy. Two "Examples of private places" are "At any medical facility" and "In the parts of a building where the general public is not allowed." By all sourced accounts the location the image was obtained in was/is a private place.

The question:

Was the image first obtained by legal means? Without a lot of in depth discussion, and without re-purposing this section, the answers should be yes, no or not sure/not clear.

  • Illegal
  1. Yes. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Legal
  • Indeterminate
  1. Without more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The real question

To avoid having words put in my mouth and his attempt to re-open the discussion and blame it on me...

Does Soundvisions1's edit to the description of the image file accurately represent the consensus from the closed thread above?

  • Disagree What was determined was that it is impossible to tell whether the image was taken in an illegal manner or not because we do not know the specifics nor the legalities of the situation. Therefore, until evidence is presented otherwise, we have no reason not to believe that the image was taken legally. SilverserenC 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NOT RELEVANT - you raised the question, you said you could not see any consensus even after I pointed it out and you specifically said up above that the question needed to be be asked. Secondly - if you actually had read the closed discussion above you would find a long list of links including the Washington Post (relatives bribed a guard at the morgue to take a photo of the corpse). Now both of you answer the actual qestion above. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As has already been explained, "bribing" someone is not inherently illegal. I can bribe a friend to do something for me right now. It doesn't mean that doing so is illegal. It may be if you are bribing someone to do an illegal act, but we have no indication that Saeed's brother going into the morgue and taking a picture is illegal. There is no reason for us to assume that it was illegal for him to do so or against the rules of the morgue, especially when any photos of the deceased automatically belong to the relatives regardless. SilverserenC 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP trumps. If it's important, the file description may include the fact that the family bribed a guard—although it's vague as to do what; to gain access to the body? To look the other way while they photographed it? Either way, it facilitated taking the photograph; we know that from the source. But these are living people, and BLP governs file descriptions, too. We are required to follow our sources and not push beyond what they actually say, no matter what we may think that means. The earlier discussion here was one thing, because we were determining whether the image should be usable on Wikipedia. The file description is entirely another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply: I concur except if it were not for the fact the earlier discussion directly addressed this issue and the image description directly took much of the information provided in the discussion as a "source" that images description now it becomes 100% relative to 8this* discussion. By the same rationale I would have a right to remove all of the added information saying this was an NFCC based discussion and not a file description discussion and there was been zero consensus to add any of that information to the file description page. But I won't do that because I am not a dick. Image use policy would trump NFCC, NFCC would trump BLP for images (i.e - text saying someone took a bong hit may not be verifiable on its own - but add a video or image and suddenly it is verified. Follow?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Describing an action as criminal in the image file is a WP:BLP violation unless we a have source that uses the word "illegal". We can't do it whether we're dicks or not because policy doesn't permit it. If there is anything else in that file page that you think is a violation of BLP, by all means, remove it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is inappropriate

Either this is an attempt to discuss something out of the scope of WP:NFCR (which I believe is the case) or it is an attempt to open a new non-free content review on the same image inappropriately quickly. In either case, this discussion should not be happening here. Take it to the image talk page. Whether or not the image description should contain the word "illegal" is a minor concern with no direct bearing on its fair use status, which has already been determined. I am calling for an uninvolved editor to review whether this entire section should be procedurally closed before we start going around in the same unproductive circles again. Thparkth (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Reply: It does have bearing on NFCC and that was actual explained in detail more than once in the now closed thread. Also as the thread was a huge CF by the end it was hard to anyone to really close it as so many issues had been discussed. The closure that did happen was for far removed form the actual discussion it made no sense given the wider scope of issues raised. One editor specifically said there was no consensus regarding the first origin of the image and they disputed the fact it was really even discussed beyond one editor, thus suggested the question be raised (again) to gain consensus (again) on the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You do not contest a close by re-starting the discussion. Take it up with the closer on their talk page, and if you don't get a satisfactory response, consider taking it to one of the applicable noticeboards. For what it's worth, I agree that there was no clear consensus regarding whether the image was made illegally or not, but I think there was a clear consensus that it doesn't matter to the NFCC status in this case, and I assume the closer took that into account. Thparkth (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with he first part and I presume that was meant for the editor who did not participate in the discussion who raised the issue (again). As for the rest that please sate the answer in the area designated for the answer so this doesn't become another huge CF. Soundvisions1 (talk)


  • I would be interested in taking this case to someone who will review the policy and apply it to this case, and have their decision be binding. Is there such a process? USchick (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Now we use the image and improve the article around it. If you want to pursue this further you can try an WP:RFC, which will likely gain little traction since it will just see the image as important through the RS and refer technical issues back to this board; you can appeal to WP:JIMBO (i'd love to hear his opinion on this); you can contact the WP:WMF yourself, and likely have them refer you back to this consensus since there's no obvious legal risk. You can try at any of the copyright policies themselves to introduce new, clearer, or stronger language (though I doubt it will be seen in a positive light following this discussion). You can write an WP:ESSAY about why you think this is a bad idea. You can re-raise it at this board some other time, though it's unlikely the NFCC#1, 4, 6, or 8 issues will have changed in such a way that would outweigh all of the evidence presented. Ocaasi c 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of this revolves around the appropriateness of the previously closed conversation which can now be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 9#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. The primary new issue regarding possible illegality of the original taking of the image remains an open question, but in the absence of any further evidence this ambiguity does not appear to affect the prior consensus regarding this image. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Kingkiss.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} One of 2 non-free images used in the relatively small aticle King & King. Having 2 non-free images is excessive. The other is the book cover, which is fine. This image is used to illustrate 2 men kissing. The image fails WP:NFCC #8. Lionel (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the rationale given is perfectly acceptable. "It is an example of how homosexuality is presented in the book. The book caused a federal lawsuit against a school district because it was claimed that it constituted sexual education. The image is used as an example of what was thought offensive in the book." If you're motivated solely by a concern for the number of non-free images, the cover, which is probably less pertinent, can be removed instead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the book cover is a far better representation of what caused the lawsuit, as it represents the whole book. Additionally, it identifies the book which is a solid rationale for fair use. The image of the last page is a more problematic justification relative to copyright law as it does not significantly enhance the readers appreciation of the topic. Apart from my well founded copyvio concerns, from a personal viewpoint, I think the last page is actually helpful for parents reading WP and trying to decide if this kind of material is appropriate for their children.Lionel (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I already linked you to the policy on censorship, but maybe you didn't notice, so here it is more clearly: Wikipedia is not censored. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I point out Lionelt's last sentence: "I think the last page is actually helpful for parents reading WP and trying to decide if this kind of material is appropriate for their children." That's the first half of NFCC #8 right there: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." If the image improves the readers' understanding of the topic, then inclusion of it is appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think I misinterpreted the comment. I thought it was intended to mean "is Wikipedia appropriate for children." Your comment makes much more sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The link to censorship has nothing to do with this discussion. So I dismissed it out of hand. Lionel (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Think about it, and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No need to assume it is attempted censorship. I don't believe the kissing image is so crucial to the reader's understanding that we need to use copyrighted material. I could understand using it if that particular image was highlighted as a concern but the article and a quick scan of the sources currently used do not say that. I might have missed it or something might be available in other sources. Words are sufficient to convey the information in this instance at this time. I think it would be great to have if it was not under copyright.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I remember the image being a very big deal because it was "promoting", I'll look and see what the papers say. Trekhippie (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC) OK, School's same-sex storybook shocks parents N.C. couple objects to gay love story lent to first-grade daughter specifically mentions the kiss, but Librarians Weigh in on a Book Dealing with Same-Sex Marriage has the clincher. It was part of the US Presidential election. "The question posed to Democratic front-runners Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama during an MSNBC debate on Sept 26, was whether they were comfortable with second-graders having access to or being read the children's book King & King (Ten Speed, 2002), in which a prince finds a male partner. The picture book, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, ends with a kiss." Trekhippie (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But "The picture book, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, ends with a kiss." does not need an image for the reader to better understand it. The question isn't if an image works well but if we have sufficient reason to disregard the copyright. If the actual image (not the fact that the book ends with a "kiss") needs reproduction here to assist in commentary then I could see it but as it is we are infringing on someone's copyright by reproducing it without permission. The FUR just isn't strong enough as is and we do not have reason to assume it is so useful to support commentary that it should stay.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have looked over the article and in the context of the articles text this image is just one portion of the overall book. As with any wedding, the context is simply the "you may now kiss the bride" ending. In the regard I can't see, nor find, any significant discussion of that particular image at all outside of the overall storyline.
The NFCC policy requires several thing to happen - one of them is to read the actual text contained in the article and see if an image would make that text more clear. Or, if non-free material does exist, would the removal of it render a readers understanding null. We don't allow non-free content to be used simply to decorate an article, nor do we allow non-free content to illustrate basic things - such as a kiss. Part of the discussion here is that in the "plot" section there is one line of text that says The story ends with a kiss between the two kings. The concept of a kiss, same sex or not, does not need to be illustrated by a non-free image as it can be well understood. If there is a real fear someone might not understand what a kiss is, or what one looks like, than a hyperlink from the word to the Kiss article would be fine.
Someone has also suggested it is this single illustration is the source that caused the controversy - however that is not established at all in the article, or mentioned in external sources. What is established is that "a young children's book" contains same sex themes spawned a lawsuit. This has nothing to do with this exact illustration at all - it is the wider issue: We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes and romantic attraction between two men. The entire plot summary clearly indicates the book is about a prince who meets another prince and immediately falls in love with the other prince, and they begin marriage preparations at once. The external sources do not discuss this specific illustration at all (nor any other) - they discuss the story and those that discuss the lawsuit add more light that is important in this discussion. This article, for example, points out the lawsuit was because "a teacher read a gay-themed fairytale to children without notifying them first." It also points out something relevant to the case itself in relation to the story - the school is in Massachusetts where same sex marriage is legal and it "was read during a lesson on different types of weddings." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49946 This article] is even more direct - but still does not mention the kiss itself - when it points out that "His teacher had read the book "King and King" to the class, in which a prince won't marry any princesses but instead falls in love with a princess' brother and marries him in a big palace wedding." All the other sources are in the same vein - the kiss, wen mentioned, in only part of the story itself, not given as any reason for the lawsuit.
In short: The Wikipedia article is reflective of the sources in that the kiss itself in not controversial, it is the theme of the book overall that created concerns. As there is no sourced commentary about this specific illustration it is simply a "decoration" and fails the NFCC policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll research this again, the OMG image of the two prince's kissing was exactly part of the news stories. I do agree that the article should specify that is why Wikipedia is using the image. I'll try to get this done asap and add it to the article.Trekhippie (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, found sources stating that the image of the kiss itself was controversial and possibly the most upsetting item for some of those parents who disliked the book. I have added this content so I hope this helps. Trekhippie (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that makes a big difference. However, do the sources give it as much prominence that you just did or did you exaggerate its importance while attempting to justify use of the image? As is, I would support keeping the image but ask that you double check just to make sure.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I was only looking for content relative to the image of the kiss, rather than building up the entire article. Most of the controversy was tied to the image of two men kissing, it was called pornography at one point. Interestingly enough it wasn't the children who seemed to have any issues, just their parents. There was plenty of information available about the follow-up book, the plot, the authors, the moral and ethical lessons, etc. but those were not the focus of my concern. Trekhippie (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That is my point. Were you so focused on making this FUR decent that you disregarded the weight given to the image in sources? This is more of a content question since there is now a giant paragraph that wouldn't be there without this discussion. That might be a good thing (the picture might be that important) but it also might give it too much prominence. Regardless, I would not be OK disputing the FUR anymore but would still like to make sure that there wasn't too much cherry picking weight wise. Great work finding those sources but I am bummed since I don't have easy access (ease of access is not mandated) to them. Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the image was cited constantly but not universally, the items that were cited nearly universally could fit in one sentence and is already in the article. I might try to work with Roscelese but the future changes really only amount to adding more information about the follow-up book and maybe adding to the plot (it's a short book, so I'm not sure on that). More information on the authors, and the book's moral and ethical lessons might be warranted as well but that doesn't really take away from "the kiss". Trekhippie (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well good luck. I am fine supporting inclusion now. I know that makes the !votes a little closer so the closer will have the tough job of gauging its appropriateness based on the reasoning provided.Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Seems to have a pretty reasonable rationale for requiring two images. — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the second image, NFCC #8 is satisfied, both the text and one of the sources make note of that specific page being of specific concern, which is quite relevant to understanding the issues here. Additional sources, e.g., ([2] from the AP) appear to single two scenes form the book as particularly controversial the wedding and the final kiss, whereas the cover image has been described as a misleading representation of the book in at least one source ([3]) which singles out the kiss page as the sole page it describes in detail, a pattern seen in other editorials on the subject (e.g., [4]) If the specifics of the page are not important, why do sources continue to document it in such detail? Added: There is a fair question above as to whether a textual description is sufficient. I don't believe that it is. The reaction to the image is the significant point here, and that reaction is one that readers of our article, with this image, will make subjectively based on many characteristics of the image we do not communicate in text, e.g., are the people who are kissing standing or lying down? clothed or unclothed? There's a heart in the picture, do we see the lips? Does the kiss come across as passionate or chaste? Therein lies the added value, we communicate more to the reader about a specifically controversial image as context for the controversy. --joe deckertalk to me 19:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Image retained. Sourced material discussing this image has also been added to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Morgoth.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Oke, so this is an illustration of a fictional character by a professional artist, since when are we allowed to use those under the nfcc criteria? Don't get me wrong, I would love it if this is allowed, but I strongly doubt it as I have never seen it before. Yoenit (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether this particular use is OK may be an open question, but there's really no alternative to using non-free images of fictional characters so long as the underlying work is in copyright. It is pretty evident that such images as Mickey Mouse, Batman, and Homer Simpson are by professional artists. I'd be more concerned that this is drawn from a merchandised image than anything else. Secondarily, I wonder the the image of an armored figure contributes to either identification of the character or the reader's understanding of the character. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue of it being from a professional artist in not really a concern in itself, and I agree with Hullaballo the concern about the source. The FUR says this is cropped from a lager image that was taken from a calender to show only this character. Because of that my concerns start with "cover art" - I am not sure if there have been discussions about calenders in relation to cover art (And this is tagged as a non free poster as well, even though the FUR doesn't say it is from a poster) but maybe there should be if it is unclear. Overall, however, it has been discussed, and consensus reached, that cover art can be used in an article about that product (i.e - a book cover in an article about the book, an album cover in an article about that album, a magazine cover in an article about the magazine, etc) but if it is use outside of the products article there needs to be sourced commentary/critical commentary on the cover itself - not the product it is from. This image is currently being used in the main infobox and is artwork from a calendar - this article is not about the calendar, nor is it about this specific artwork (see more down below about artwork). Now my next concern, and a slightly wider issue, is the concept that one can not re-purpose non-free content for another use than what it was meant for. (Calendar use aside for a moment) One of the examples given is you can't crop a rose from an album cover and use the rose in an article about roses. How something such as that would apply here - you could use some sort of frame grab or publicity still to illustrate Homer Simpson, but you couldn't take a Video game cover, crop out Homer and use that in the main infobox of the Homer Simpson article. That scenario is what appears to have played out with the image in discussion - except not from a video game, but a calendar.
On a related note, and my third concern - the artist has their own article and File:TN-Luthien-Web.jpg is the only image in that article - which is not normally acceptable as it is artwork being used without commentary on that individual piece of art (And the FUR claims it is being used as the primary means of illustrating the article topic - which is the artist, not the artwork) - and there is also an article on the character, which does not use any artwork in it. The point being is that for "artwork" the same type of concept applies as with "Cover art" - normally you can't use it to simply illustrate what the artwork shows (i.e - a tree, the sun, a woman, a man, a character) and must use it to illustrate the artwork itself or, as the example says, it must be used For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I brought up the "professional artist" thingy because, unlike Batman, Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson, Morgoths appearance is not distinct. Read Morgoth#Appearance_and_characteristics, Tolkiens description of him is limited to "Dark Lord, tall and terrible" and "In battle he wore black armour and wielded Grond, the Hammer of the Underworld, or a black spear or a poison sword". That basically means anybody could draw up some scary dude in black armor with a warhammer/spear/sword and we could use that image in the infobox for the exact same educational value. Yoenit (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To me this seems a clear and unambiguous example of unacceptable use. We could as well use a user-created (freely licenced) conceptual drawing of the character and it would have similar validity to this one. If there were reliable sources discussing this particular depiction then perhaps it may have a home here - as it is it should be sent away - Peripitus (Talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted, no further action required. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Nexusmaximus-transformerstoy.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} The article this image shows up in is Prime (Transformers), yet the fair use rationale says "The image is used to demonstrate the distinctive style of Hasbro Transformers series depicting Nexus Maximus". Thing is Nexus Maximus/Nexus Prime isn't a very well-known Prime within the Transformers Mythos (he only appeared in the issues of one magazine), neither is he "styled" similarly with any other Prime (there isn't really very much style, the toy's body parts were almost entirely recycled from Transformers: Energon, the only things not recycled were the head design and the colours, which are translucent red and purple.) so a picture of that character wouldn't really be helpful.

All in all, I really don't think seeing a picture of Nexus can give people a good clue about "Primes" within the Transformers fiction/toylines. And thus, I'm damn sure that that picture will not be a very important part of the article. I suggest a picture of a more well-known Prime which also shows general aspects of the concept, like the picture of Optimus Prime holding the Matrix of Leadership, with Primus in sillhoute (note:I'm linking to an article which uses, the picture, not the picture itself, WP:LINKVIO and all that). NotARealWord (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, it's use was in violation of WP:NFCC#10c and so I've removed it from that article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the rational. Mathewignash (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Still, it's not the best image to use, plus the resolution is way bigger than necessary. How is it that an image of Nexus, who so far only appeared in one magazine a good image for that article? Surely a picture of multiple Primes or just Optimus with the Matrix would be way better. Seeing a picture of a Voltron-esque magic woowoo super robo does not give people a good idea of what being a "Prime" entails, or anything about more than the one Prime pictured. Even if you'd wanna use a picture of only one Prime, make it Optimus holding the Matrix (he's the most well-kown and the matrix is a important plot device), not Nexus. NotARealWord (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted. Burden of proof as required by WP:NFCC not met as there was not even an attempt to explain why the image was a valid use of non-free content. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (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.

NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Championship#Logos

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} I'm just going to leave this one here for the volunteers: NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Championship#Logos. -Andrew c [talk] 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I explained the violations on the talk page. There appears to be at least one user who still "likes them", so I fear this may get worse before it gets better. As this is a clear violation of at least 3 NFCC, I have deleted the gallery of images.-Andrew c [talk] 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is at WP:NFG. Non-free galleries are “usually unacceptable,” and exceptions should be “very well-justified.” It doesn’t say what would be a very good justification, but presumably it would be that organization in the gallery facilitates the required sourced critical commentary. —teb728 t c 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are plenty of good options that are ineligible for copyright... — BQZip01 — talk 05:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Images removed (and re-removed) as clear violation of WP:NFG with no substantial rebuttal. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Yoko Ono John Lennon People magazine.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Several WP:NFC violations appear to exist with File:Yoko Ono John Lennon People magazine.jpg. 1) It's source is unclear. The actual third-party website listed as the source is extremely difficult to determine. [5]. It appears to originate here, a "test page" claiming to be "powered by" something called "CentOS". Following the link provided to obtain more info on "CentOS" leads to this confusing statement regarding copyrights and trademarks: " "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. | All other content is Copyright @ 2004-2009 by the CentOS Project or "each individual contributor (forums, comments, etc.) unless otherwise assigned". An minimum there would appear to be a confusing copyright issue.

2) The image is also misattributed as listing Jack Mitchell, the photographer, as the author of the "article". He is not. He is author of the central image itself - a photo of John Lennon & Yoko Ono - but he is not the author of the image, a magazine cover which frames the Mitchell photo. Nor was he ever credited as being responsible for any of the accompanying authorship or editorial content within the magazine, so the claim that he is the "author" of the image is not only misleading, but factually inaccurate.

3) The image itself also prominently displays the trademarked logo of "People Magazine", a subsidiary of Time Inc., and is itself an image of the cover of an issue of that magazine. Both seem to fall under the Prohibited Use and Trademark provisions of Time Inc, which states in part: "Trademark. Nothing contained on the Web Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel, or otherwise, any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Web Site without our written permission or the third party that may own the applicable Trademark. Your misuse of the Trademarks displayed on the Web Site or on or through any of the Web Site's services is strictly prohibited."

4) Under the website's "Prohibited Use: Any commercial or promotional distribution, publishing or exploitation of the Web Site, or any content, code, data or materials on the Web Site, is strictly prohibited unless you have received the express prior written permission from our authorized personnel or the otherwise applicable rights holder. Other than as expressly allowed herein, you may not download, post, display, publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, modify, perform, broadcast, transfer, create derivative works from, sell or otherwise exploit any content, code, data or materials on or available through the Web Site. You further agree that you may not alter, edit, delete, remove, otherwise change the meaning or appearance of, or repurpose, any of the content, code, data, or other materials on or available through the Web Site, including, without limitation, the alteration or removal of any trademarks, trade names, logos, service marks, or any other proprietary content or proprietary rights notices. You acknowledge that you do not acquire any ownership rights by downloading any copyrighted material from or through the Web Site. If you make other use of the Web Site, or the content, code, data or materials thereon or available through the Web Site, except as otherwise provided above, you may violate copyright and other laws of the United States, other countries, as well as applicable state laws and may be subject to liability for such unauthorized use."

Again from WP:NFC policy and WP:FUC: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia... Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." The criteria are listed. Upon review, it does not appear this image meets that threshold. X4n6 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1) The file description page clearly identifies the source as the cover of the December 1980 issue of People. Perhaps it would be better if that were listed on the Source line, but that is a picky, correctable matter. 2) I don’t see anything that suggests that Mitchell is the author of People article; perhaps you are confused by the indication that he is subject of the Wikipedia article. 3&4) The cover is used under US fair use law; any restrictions claimed by Time Inc do not affect Wikipedia’s right to use it.
The use is in accord with WP:NFCC. Its sourced commentary on the cover itself significantly increases reader understanding. And since the cover itself is at issue, there is no free replacement. —teb728 t c 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The Source is a third party website, apparently unaffiliated with either People Magazine or Time Inc., that does not even establish it's own right to publish the image. That's a problem. While People/Time make it clear that it prohibits use of its trademark without prior written consent and makes those who violate it's copyright subject to liability. That's another problem. The image Summary lists Jack Mitchell as "article", one assumes that meant "author" - but he is not the author of the image. He is the author of the image within the image. As related to attribution and authorship that is a significant distinction. According to policy at WP:FUC, not only is there no automatic entitlement to non-free use images, but the burden of proof falls on the image to prove it meets all Wikipedia criteria. That burden must be met. Finally, the Wikipedia article the image accompanies is not even about the subjects in the image. The article is about the photographer whose photo appears in the image - not the subjects of the image. While John Lennon & Yoko Ono are discussed in the article, as are several other notable individuals, the article is not about them, it is about the photographer, Jack Mitchell. So the notion that it is necessary to use a non-free, copyrighted and trademarked image of two people who aren't even the subjects of that article, to illustrate the article, seems questionable. X4n6 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The source is the magazine; bdbphotos merely made a faithful scan of the cover. The “Article” line of a non-free use rationale identifies the Wikipedia article for which the rationale is provided. The use on the photographer’s bio is in accord with WP:NFCI#7, illustrating critical commentary on his work. Use on bios of Lennon and/or Ono would almost certainly be unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 23 April 2011
This image appears to comply with all 10 non-free content policy, so there is no issue on its current use. ww2censor (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Per Applied to Wikipedia: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project." Also: "Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to remove unfree copyrighted content at any time. Note that citation sources and external links raise other copyright concerns that are addressed in other policies." As already noted above, it seems very clear that People/Time Inc. would reject any claims of non-free or fair use as expressly violating their very strict if not exhaustive sections on "Prohibited Uses" of their Copyright & "Trademark". Thereby creating the very conditions for legal liabilities that they warn against, and the project is justifiably concerned about. X4n6 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears you don't really understand that fair-use is claimed when the copyright holder restricts use of their material. You should also be aware that quoting only one part of the section you did excludes this quote from the same section: If a work is not free, Wikipedia requires that it comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. As explained above, this policy is more restrictive than US law requires. Logically, material that satisfies the policy should also satisfy legal requirements as well. However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. So, if the use of a copyright image complies with Wikipedia's restrictive fair-use policy, we can use such an image no matter what the copyright holder claims; that is the point of fair-use. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
As the very policy section you quote recommends, may I suggest that you review the legal rules regarding what a "fair use" claim actually involves, as it appears you have inaccurately imbued it with a greater level of protection than it factually affords. A claim of "fair use" is simply an affirmative defense that the claimant/defendant alone bears the burden to prove. It does not prevent a counterclaim of copyright infringement - nor does it provide immunity from liability. "Fair use" is simply a claim - not a fact - based upon some exemptions in copyright law. But a copyright holder is always free to reject any or all "fair use" claims, counterclaim copyright/trademark infringement, and prevail in court. So a copyright holder, especially one as plainly determined to vigorously protect its copyright and trademark against all unauthorized uses, as this one appears to be, would very likely be undeterred by a simple claim of "fair use". To the contrary, as the article indicates, such a copyright holder may even use the courts, regardless of the outcome, as a deterrent against such claims. Bottomline: Let's not pretend that a "fair use" claim is a blanket protection against copyright infringement liability. It simply is not. X4n6 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what Time or People magazine say, they cannot prevent fair use of their images; this is part of their copyright protection when they publish it. They can challenge others using their images by the 3 main points that define fair use: extent, purpose, and commercial opportunity - so say "Thyme" magazine sold a magazine with that same cover image, "Time" would have a good chance of winning. But if someone uses a small image of it in a critical article about the photographer for educational purposes, they won't likely win. Since through NFC we enforce all three main points for fair use, we are likely not going to have a problem. (If you want to see how the courts take to those that are overzealous on suing those using works under fair use, just search around for "Righthaven")
On WP, we have NFC which is built on fair use but requires more. We normally exclude magazine covers on any article except articles on the magazines themselves, but have exceptions when specific covers are discussed at depth within an article. EG we can use these covers because the racial twist was the subject of discussion. Here, in this case, the cover with John and Yoko (and Mitchell's artistic photo of them) is clearly the subject of commentary in the article, and thus seems to comply with all NFC goals. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Once more: You say Time and/or People cannot prevent fair use. You are quite correct. But they don't have to. They can just claim copyright infringement after the fact and litigate, or threaten to litigate. They don't have to disprove the legal theory of "fair use", they simply have to prevail with the argument that "fair use" was not appropriate in this case. I have repeatedly pointed out that Time/People take copyright/trademark claims very seriously. You suggested that I do a bit of Googling. So I did. Here's what I found. And this. Strikingly similar circumstances to our own situation - and to what I have repeatedly cautioned about. Wouldn't you say? X4n6 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
A tenet that WP generally goes by is that unless we've clearly crossed some legal line, we don't let fear of legal action deter the work. If People/Time decide to sue WP for what we believe is an otherwise fair use/NFC-appropriate image, they (the Foundation) will tell us, and we will take action on removing the image. By your argument, potentially every NFC image we have could be central to a lawsuit by a disgruntled copyright owner. Obviously, we don't worry about that, and that's why unless is clearly is outside the allowance of fair use, we cannot worry what the license holder will say. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Your response is telling. It is reminiscent of the gambler determined to double down on a losing hand simply because he's playing with house money. I can only hope you'll also go "all in" with your personal financial support when approached to contribute to the WF/WP Legal Defense Fund. X4n6 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't my response, this is how the Foundation works. Legal has told us not to worry about copyright issues that are vague until we are told they are an issue, then they or we will remove them. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem. This image is being used under fair use. Given that this project is an educational work, the copyright holder would have a hell of a time trying to claim copyright infringement by this project for the use as is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing vague about this particular copyright issue. We already have multiple, documented examples proving this particular copyright holder immediately claims copyright infringement for doing precisely the same thing you are endorsing here: posting a copy of their copyrighted & trademarked magazine cover on a website, then claiming it's size and scope are protected under fair use. In several cases, the copyright holder is already on record as consistently rejecting that claim from others who've used it - and has repeatedly proven that it is prepared to turn litigious against any who refuse to comply with it's demand. What makes you think your fair use claim is superior to those they've already rejected? In fact, it is identical. This copyright holder has also demonstrated that it may demand a use fee - even after compliance with their Cease & Desist. No one has, or can, deny that this accurately reflects the record of Time Inc. and its response to fair use claims just like this one. So there is nothing vague about that at all.
But since it is clear you are determined to move forward, despite the circumstances, I think it's probably wise, prudent and legally preemptive to bring this matter to the attention of the Foundation. If, after reviewing the copious notes here, they still elect to sign off on it, so be it. At least then they cannot say they weren't fairly noticed, or claim they were blindsided by us. Of course, as the final referee, we will all abide by their decision.
Sometimes it's just wise not to enter the crosswalk - even if you've got the right-of-way - when you can plainly see that the 18-wheeler barreling down on you, will not stop for you. Thanks for the spirited debate. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify; nobody is claiming "free use". We're claiming fair use. As to whether it's fair use or not, the issue is of transformative nature. That's an important underpinning of fair use. I think that exists here. I don't disagree with bringing it to the attention of the Foundation. See Foundation:Contact us. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that throughout, most have understood that this issue relates to the appropriate application of "fair use", the legal exemption to copyright law. But thanks for the clarification. I'll also note your position regarding the merits of Foundation review of this question. X4n6 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't read too far into that. If someone wants to contact the Foundation, there's no reason to stop them. That said, I think any claim by an outside entity that we, Wikipedia, are violating fair use would get nowhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Foundation has been advised of this issue. So as far as I'm concerned, it's theirs now. Your "endorsement" of that route was plainly generic, so it was not included. But obviously they can read this log to see where everyone stands. But I have to say that as far as your belief that an outside entity's copyright and trademark infringement counterclaim rejecting a "fair use" claim would "get nowhere", I suppose that would depend entirely upon how you define "nowhere". Is a "cease and desist" demand "nowhere"? Is a lawsuit threat "nowhere"? Is a claim of damages and for "use fees", "nowhere"? How about an expensive, actual lawsuit, regardless of the outcome? Is that still "nowhere"? But again, it's academic now. We'll let the Foundation decide. X4n6 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems I should remind you that I am not the party you would need to convince. Should it become necessary, perhaps the Foundation should advise that Time Inc. contact you directly to offer your confident legal counsel. But I suspect Time's legal counsel might well be undeterred by your amicus brief. To the contrary, it is more likely that you would only end up being educated in the strategy in the law known as the SLAPP lawsuit. X4n6 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a reason I mentioned the Righthaven group as something to look up. If you didn't, you'd fine they have been slapped down by the courts for overzealous copyright protection where fair use clearly applies. And this is recent - March 2011 IIRC. And of course the examples you point to are to the DCMA - a law that would seem to have no applicability to a digital scan of an analog magazine cover where there's no copyright circumvention needed as has been shown since. I cannot speak to the Foundation but I would suspect they would fight such a suit should TIme bring it, since it is a fundamental tenet of how our use embodied what fair use is supposed to allow for. (educational purpose with respect for the commercial copyright). --MASEM (t) 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
When I began this, it was to make one simple point: You can make a "fair use" claim. But the copyright holder can also reject it, then determine with how much vigor it would assert a counterclaim of infringement. Period. Nothing anyone has said contradicts those two statements of fact. Tangents regarding the relative merits of one claim over another, or predictions regarding which side would prevail in court, are simply that: tangents. They were never the original issue. The issue was simply to caution that this particular copyright holder has a history of zealous and litigious responses to "fair use" claims. Once again, no one disputes this. So at this point, everyone has been more than adequately cautioned. That's it. The End. X4n6 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, so this ridiculously absurd exercise can end now? That's good. Back to reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not meaning to belabor the point, but I do want to make clear that this is the reason for why the Foundation implemented its Resolution that requires well-established (per project) documentation on why we consider the use of non-free works as "exceptional", documenting the extent of minimal use, relevance to the project, etc., which in turn is how en.wiki's NFC requirement for image rationales is borne from. It is, in essence, a de facto legal defense, stronger than what fair use requires, to protect WP even against the most zealous of copyright defenders. Its why we don't worry about the legal standing of a group that owns copyright in how they defend that copyright when we are editing WP, because that's how the Foundation rolls. But its also why the NFC is so detailed as to what images we don't allow to further protect against improper fair use, such as through press photos. As long as you're aware that the Foundation will handle any complaints sent their way, you shouldn't worry if the particular copyright holder is the most zealous protector of their IP. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
We're not done yet? Okay... But unlike the ridiculously absurd exercise of someone calling this a "ridiculously absurd exercise", if anyone should get the last word, I think we can agree that it should be the Foundation counsel. Here is counsel's response, posted without prior consent, but under a "fair use" claim :) Bold emphasis is mine, instruction is his:
Wikimedia does not preview content preemptively before it is posted to our site. Since Wikipedia is merely a hosting service, the responsibility, and ultimate liability, for a posting rests with the editor. For that reason the editor should be sure that any contribution he or she makes complies with our policies and copyright law.
Wikimedia may remove content but only after receipt of a DMCA notice from the rights owner. Such a notice assists us in undertaking a close evaluation of the claim as explained by the rights owner to determine whether content may be infringing. A DMCA notice however does not exonerate an editor, so, for that reason, the editor should be sure that all policies and laws are complied with before posting the material.
Now truly, The End. X4n6 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is what we have been telling you all along. As the counsel said, “the editor should be sure that all policies and laws are complied with before posting the material.” That has been done, and the use clearly conforms to WP:NFCC and fair use law. [As you acknowledged in your 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) post, “Time and/or People cannot prevent fair use.”] If and when Time, Inc sends a DMCA notice, the foundation will decide whether to remove the material (probably not since the claim would have not basis). I’m glad to see you are signing off. —teb728 t c 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

While I was more than happy to "sign off", you can thank your curious "victory lap" for compelling a final response. Nothing counsel said changes the fact pattern of anything I've said. Nor does your out of context cherry-picking of my comments. That's just silliness. So your embarrassing little "I told ya so" happy dance just seemed a bit ridiculous. Further, nothing in counsel's letter, by design and per his explanation, specifically addresses this case. Therefore your unfortunate extrapolation, as though he confirmed anything you've said specific to this case, simply suggests that you might be well served to re-read his response. So I recommend that you begin where he ends: with that last sentence. X4n6 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
By “that last sentence” I assume you mean “… the editor should be sure that all policies and laws are complied with before posting the material.” Well, there are four people unanimously telling you here that there is no policy or law problem with this use; we understand the policies and law concerned with non-free content and have a well-deserved reputation for their strict enforcement. —teb728 t c 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Centaurus_Model.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This image is a copyrighted image taken from the official website and uploaded onto Wikipedia under a false license. This image is a perspective architecture drawing of an under-construction building. Nikkul (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged this for speedy deletion as F9. Since the image was claimed under a free license, this sort of issue should be brought up at WP:PUF, for future reference. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted, no further action required. For future reference, this is not a non-free content issue, but rather a copyvio issue and should either be tagged for speedy deletion or listed at WP:PUF as indicated by RJaguar3. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_10&oldid=1091454365"