Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 12

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sven Manguard in topic File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.png
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Madonna album covers

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} I uploaded some non-free album cover arts in order to replace the ones that were already in use. The reason I did this is because the previous ones are too dark in coloring whereas mine are of a lighter superior coloring and quality and also mine show the cover art of a modern day album and not the old vinyl record.I have been going back and forth with User:The Mark of the Beast and he suggested I posted my case here. I think the ones I uploaded should be used as the coloring and quality is superior of those that were already there. --OfficialDzire (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The ones I uploaded:

The ones that already there:

This seems like an aesthetic disagreement, and I won't express an opinion about which versions of the album covers are superior. What I will say, though, is that making accusations of vandalism about good-faith disagreements about the relative quality of various images is not appropriate. I note that OfficialDzire has now been accused of being a sockpuppet. I don't know whether or not that's true, but I do know that sockpuppetry is not the same as vandalism, and that attempting to improve image quality is also not vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I will say that I think that, in general, we should use the earliest, or "old vinyl record" version of an album cover whenever possible. The original release art should be considered preferable to re-release versions, just as book collectors seek first editions rather than republications. So, when available, book cover images should be from the first edition, and album cover images should be from the earliest release. A contrary opinion isn't vandalism, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Really? We have to argue about slight differences in brightness and make it such a divisive disagreement we have to bring it here? Wow. Concur with Cullen; go with initial release images, delete the "better" (cough) ones, and drop it. It's not worth the argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Original poster has been banned as a sock puppet master. All images in question that were uploaded by the OP have been orphaned and tagged for deletion. Nothing further to do here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 29 August 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: University of New Mexico athletics logos

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} We have at least 3 non-free files of different logos for University of New Mexico athletics, used in 10 articles. This seems excessive. The files are:

I propose that we delete all files except File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png, which appears to be the current logo (judging by Official Athletics Website of The University of New Mexico), and use it only in the two articles that cover University of New Mexico athletics, namely University of New Mexico and Lobo (New Mexico mascot). The remaining uses of these files are for articles on particular teams and years, and having a logo there seems more for decoration that for understanding.

Rationale:

  • WP:NFC#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • WP:LOGOS#Uploading_non-free_logos "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria."

Note: there is also a free text-only logo,

but this seems not to be used by the University currently.

Thanks. --69.96.203.133 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - KEEP ALL, Reasoning each logo is used on a different page for a different purpose. For instance, the Lobo Alternative logo (lobo head) is the actual athletics logo it is used on the Basketball court of The Pit. The Logo with "New Mexico" on it is still in current use on school shirts. Nothing wrong with multiple logos used for different pages. Look at other University pages for example. SteveoJ (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that they should be deleted. There is absolutly no reason to have the multiple logos. So what if the school uses it on shirts, they own the logos! thus they can freely do whatever they want with them. Wikipedia does not own those logos so they can not be freely used for anything. So yes, there is a lot wrong with using different logos for different pages, it is pointless, its improper use of non free images and it needs to be simplifed to just one logo.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It’s a content issue not a policy issue. If the logo which best identifies the article varies from article to article, there is no policy reason why Wikipedia could not host more than one logo. What is a potential policy issue is using more than one logo on the same article. In particular, as things stand at present, File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png should be deleted because it is used only on University of New Mexico, and the use is only to decorate the Athletics section. —teb728 t c 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the comment "content issue not a policy issue," what does that mean? Regardless of any other concerns, the image File:Lobo Alternate athletics logo.png has no justification I can imagine that would satisfy "minimal usage," as it's a near duplicate of File:UNM_Lobo_Logo.png, and needs to be deleted. I'd favour deleting all and using the free image if at all possible. Second best deleting all but File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png. I'd want to hear a good rational for having File:UNM_Lobo_Logo.png kept, one that addresses these images specifically. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, they're still being used on sports season articles, and that usage needs to stop per previous consensus and all other sports articles. This time, I removed the first image from articles like 2010–11 New Mexico Lobos men's basketball team only for an editor to replace them with the second one. It would be easiest to delete all except File:UNM Lobo Logo.png. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • After six months of discussion, I have nominated two of the files for deletion at WP:FFD. I don't think any more information will be provided here, so I think whatever is decided there should stand. – Quadell (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Only one such logo image currently exists, so it's now moot. – Quadell (talk) 05:45, 31 August 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:Cushing-mosaic.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This is a photograph of a portrait in mosaic of Cardinal Richard Cushing, who died in 1970.

The image is currently being used as principal infobox image at Richard Cushing. It is also in use in a gallery at Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral, which seems inappropriate to me, as there is currently no text discussion in that article of artworks in the cathedral. Use of the image might be appropriate, not in a gallery, in that article, if a specific discussion was added of art works in the cathedral and this artwork in particular. It's third use, in a gallery of "notable persons" at Boston College, seems definitely inappropriate.

At the moment the image has no NFC rationale for any of its uses, so if we just stand back, process will take its course.

However, I was thinking of adding a rationale for Richard Cushing, (i) as an identifying portrait of him, as somebody who has been dead 40 years; and (ii) since it seems quite a significant thing for him to be immortalised in stone chips in a cathedral.

But I thought I'd seek wider input first. My question: is it appropriate to use an artwork as an identifying portrait, when photographs might be available which, though non-free, arguably contain less expressive input? On the other hand, this is a publicly displayed artwork of a monumental nature in a markedly significant place, showing which brings its own value to the article. So: vis-a-vis copyright law, where do we think we stand on this image? Do we think its current use be considered Fair Use for us and our downstream commercial republishers, and so appropriate? Or would the image itself need more discussion and review? And how does this compare to the legal position for other images we use for dead people (including portraits in oil paint) ?

((Also, one last thought -- has anyone had any success in try to get an organisation like the Eparchy of Newton to release their rights in a particular 2d image of a publicly displayed work of art, while perhaps reserving rights in the underlying work itself, and any other images that might be made of it ? Not that I feel enough for this image to feel like putting in any time to petition them myself).

Just wondering what people thought. Jheald (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see your point about the Cushing article, and I think you make a good case for it there. The other two uses are certainly not appropriate, given that it's certainly possible to get free images of Boston College and the cathedral. (It's unfortunate indeed that the US has no freedom of panorama for cases like this). I might also try contacting the rights holder if they can be clearly identified, I've had some success with that in the past. The organization very likely is not making money selling photos of this, so they may well be amenable to allowing or providing a free photo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What is problematic is that we are infringing on the copyright of someone who is quite unrelated to any legitimate fair use interest we could have here, namely the artist who created the mosaic (when we are not discussing his creation as a work of art). If our purpose is merely to show a portrait of the person, then we should go for a photograph whose copyright is owned by the subject's own heirs or the organisation he represented, and whose creative value will typically be far less prominent. Also, with a person of this period, in the US, it's highly likely that there will in fact be PD images (anything published around the time he became a cardinal, if it wasn't published with an explicit copyright notice etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I concur with Future Perfect at Sunrise on this. As with cover art we don't allow artwork to be used to illustrate the subject who appears in/on it. The subject being dead or alive is not relevant in these cases. In order for this paining to be used in an article about the subject of the painting it first needs to be removed from the main infoxbox and there would need to be sourced commentary about the painting itself if it were to be used elsewhere in the article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 1 September 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.

Superfluous Edmonton Oilers logos

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Files to be reviewed:

We have File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg for Edmonton Oilers and that might be fine; however, 3 additional colour variants of the same logo design is too much. Their differences is not so significant that they cannot be described in words, using File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg as a reference. The listed 3 fails WP:NFCC #1 in my view. Jappalang (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1980s one should stay, this was the logo that was used in their "glory days" - the other two can go, though. Connormah (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated all three of these for deletion, along with File:Logo Edmonton Oilers.svg. – Quadell (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous images deleted, so it's moot now. – Quadell (talk) 18:29, 1 September 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:MacPhail Mark Officer.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This image does not in increase "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Nor would "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." See WP:NFCC#8. It is used merely to illustrate the victim of a crime. If that qualified as fair use, then we could use any copyrighted picture of the victim of a crime in any article about the crime or about the victim. Some of the uploader's rationales for its "fair" use make no sense - "humanizing" the victim? the use of the image is not "confusing" (this isn't trademark)?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete no further understanding of the article is gained by its addition. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. What about the parallel to the image of Officer Daniel Faulkner in the Mumia Abu-Jamal article?24.61.213.154 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Illustration (as opposed to decoration) is an encyclopedic purpose. In articles with biographical content, a picture of the subject always increases readers' understanding of the topic. Thparkth (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Illustration fine. But, what purpose does the illustration serve other than to provide a vague visual reference that has nothing to do with the article? Is there something significant about the particular appearance of this person as reported in secondary sources? No. Thus, decorative. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is titled "Troy Davis case." The Troy Davis case is about the murder of Officer MacPhail. The photo is of Officer MacPhail. To read you describe it, one would think I had added a photo of puppies.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The rationale was copied verbatim from the similar photograph of Officer Faulkner in the Mumia Abu-Jamal article. The MacPhail image can be justified 1) as a publicity photo that was released by an agency (Savannah Police) for purposes of wide dissemination (and it has been widely used in newspapers) and 2) as a historical photo of a significant individual for whom no free image is known to exist.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. The whole world works on precedent. If you read the policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you will see that it is not always a bad argument. The policy makes clear that sometimes OSE is valid and sometimes it is invalid.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The Faulkner image isn't any more justified than this one. It's a blatant fail, being used for decoration only. Again, there is nothing significant about the appearance of this individual such that it must be included in the article for people to understand that the officer died in this case. We get it. He died. That image doesn't convey any new meaning not already extant in the article. We are a free content resource. See our mission. We only use non-free content when we must. This isn't a must, not by a long shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This is an illustrative photo that adds to the reader's comprehension of the background of the case. JakeH07 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how? We know the victim was a police officer, so the photo of the man does nothing that the text already doesn't address. It's purely decoration on this article. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's actually worse than that because there's nothing in the photo to even indicate that MacPhail was a policeman.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Should be delete - While I agree that pictures of crime victims are not necessary in articles about notable crimes, this seems to be the commons practice here on Wikipedia. I expect this to be closed as a delete to set up a much needed precedent. --Damiens.rf 00:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is gone now, so it's moot. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 1 September 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:Hector pieterson.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} User:Damiens.rf want's to remove the Pieterson image in the Soweto Uprising article, as he believes that it does not satisfy fair-use. I, however, disagee. My reason for the image to be kept, is that the image of Antoinette Sithole and Mbuyisa Makhubo carrying a 12-year-old Hector Pieterson moments after he was shot by South African police, was an iconic image of the uprising. As such, it should be kept. Any opinions? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  • For the record, my opinion is that the iconic non-free photo is being used in that article as a illustration of the events depicted, and not for discussion about its status as an iconic image. Such discussion takes place is another article where the image is used. --Damiens.rf 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As you know there is currently an active RFC on whether or not non-free images of historical events are required to themselves be the subject of commentary. I'm sure you also know that there is no clear consensus emerging at present from the RFC, and that there isn't even a consensus about what the current wording of WP:NFCI actually means. Don't you think you should hold off on removing images on this basis for now? Thparkth (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That discussion has very few chance to change the long existing guideline that, in any case, is just supposed to reflect what the policy says. Even if you remove the whole guideline (and not just one line, as proposed) the policy would stay, and I'm arguing here based in the policy. In the unlikely case the guideline got changed to say we can use non-free images that simply show what's being discussed in an article, I have a list of some thousand images I would like to upload to improve the pedia. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you are arguing from policy, could you please point me to the policy which requires the removal of non-free images depicting historically-significant events because the iconic status of the image is not discussed? Thparkth (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
More directly, WP:NFCC#2: by using the photo to depict the events it captures, we're replacing the original market role for the image. --Damiens.rf 21:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument, particularly in this case, where we haven't even credited the photographer even though we have an article about him. Thparkth (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The RFC discussed above was closed with the decision to remove the requirement that the non-free photos be "subjects of commentary". So that issue is moot. The objection about not crediting the photographer seems to be moot. Are there any open issues here, or can I close it? – Quadell (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The use on that article is decorative and the RFC did not concluded such uses are allowed. It just concluded that it's not always that critical commentary is needed for historic images (and leave it open for when can we use such images without commentary). --damiens.rf 20:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. – Quadell (talk) 18:32, 1 September 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:The_Sun_(Gotcha).png

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This is a non-free scan of a newspaper cover displaying a specific cover story that generated much controversy due to it's huge GOTCHA! headline. While I believe there's enough discussion in reliable sources about this cover to support our texts about the cover itself, and while I believe seeing the cover is necessary for a proper understanding of those texts (since the layout, and not just the wording, of the headline is discussed by the reliable sources), I believe we don't have a reason to replicate the use of this image over 5 distinct articles.

Just one article should discuss the cover, and thus use the image, and others may or may not briefly discuss it and link to the main article.

A proper fair use rationale should be written for the main article once it's decided which one it is (I would gladly write such rationale). --Damiens.rf 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No changes needed. This image is well-justified in each of its current articles. Many of the topics are unrelated, and it would make no sense to shoehorn information about a British newspaper editor into an article about an Argentinian warship. Leave it alone. Thparkth (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This seems a good example of a non-free image which is justified on several pages; however, it requires significant cleanup. I have removed it from the history of the UK article, as it was primarily decorative there and there was no attempt at a rationale anyway. Falklands War seems to have excessive use of non-free content, and the headline is mentioned only in passing- it seems appropriate that it should be removed from there. However, the other three usages do seem to be appropriate; just because it is appropriately discussed in one article, does not mean that it cannot be appropriately discussed in another. I will clean up the rationales. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, my removal from the war article has already been reverted. People are welcome to join the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not as them to join us? --Damiens.rf 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That discussion is about one use in particular. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The headline in question was absolutely infamous during the war and afterward, it is featured in just about every book, every documentary, in fact I doubt you can pick up any reference work on the Falklands War and not see a discussion of that image. Its use on Falklands War is as an images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary, specifically as a key commentary on press coverage during the war. And the image is vital in conveying the coverage. Its use is covered by FUR and is compliant with policy. It should not be deleted. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has been stale for nearly two months; no clear consensus has emerged in my opinion. Marking file with {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}}. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:28, 3 September 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:WaitWait.png

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} No rationale :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's better to tag the image with {{no rationale}}, and notify the uploader. (I've tagged it.) There's no need to list it here. – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. This is overkill. It's something that could be fixed with the simple addition of a rationale template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a non-free use rationale to the page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rationale added. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:22, 3 September 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.

Timeline_of_artificial_intelligence

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} About half of the subject timeline appears to be lifted more or less diractly from "Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence". I can't speak to how much taking is fair use, but most of this timeline comes from that "Time Line: The Mechanization of Thinking" starting on page xxiii. 214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give us a couple of examples of copied entries? This one isn't going to be easy to evaluate because the book is not readily available. :/ But if I can find matches in Amazon book preview, that can help enormously in determining where the problem entered and how extensive it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Another contributor has kindly helped me access this, and while I have not yet had a chance to compare in depth, I have not yet found any substantial similarity. I'll look at it more thoroughly a bit later, but I think at first blush that this is likely to be okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong forum, and resolved. – Quadell (talk) 11:50, 16 September 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:Bond, James Bond.ogg

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments13 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} An issue has come up with the file File:Bond, James Bond.ogg as part of an FA Nomination procedure for the article Dr. No (film). One reviewer for the FA process has raised a concern as to its use under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, saying that it is not a complex scene and is easily replaceable by simple text description. The grounds for opposing the use of the image are given by the reviewer as WP:NFCC#8

The rationale behind pacing the file on the article is that this is the first use of the phrase "Bond, James Bond", an iconic sentence in the film world and thus an important moment in world cinema. The clip is aligned next to the text showing the accolades those particular words have won, let alone the times it, or variants thereof, have been used in parody or homage. The clip is 5.4 seconds long and of low quality. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the file doesn't meet criterion 8 of the NFCC. Reading the text in the article, the file does not contribute much to the understanding of the phrase, and a readers understanding would not be diminished if the file was removed. I'm no non-free expert, but this file doesn't seem really necessary or fit the required non-free criteria. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that having one screenshot or brief video shot is acceptable in an article such as this, if the shot in question is the subject of sourced critical commentary as this is. In my opinion, this passes NFCC#8 with flying colors, as much as a person's non-free portrait would in a biography of that person. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
To my mind, the article does not contain critical commentary in the sense that I would define the term. The "sourced critical commentary" consists largely of surveys in which the catchphrase (note: not the scene) has been voted popular. This is a catchphrase that has appeared in most (all?) of the movies, and arguably it is its ubiquity throughout the series that has sustained its popularity. It merely appeared in Dr. No first; its presence here, this one scene, is not the source of its continuing presence in the lexicon of Western pop culture (indeed, even though our article says that it was after the release of Dr. No that the phrase became popular—implying that it was a result of this film and none of the others—the cited source is a survey dated 2001, after most of the films had been produced). Critical commentary is not simply something being mentioned a few times in the article; it is high-quality, even academic, analysis of what makes the scene special or important, thematically weighty or emotionally resonant. And even if such analysis exists (none appears in the article), I still think it would be difficult to justify use of the clip, as it remains extraordinarily easy to describe its contents. Compare that to the longer clip I cite as a comparison in my FAC opposition; look at the "purpose of use" and the text that accompanies the video in the article—you'll see the level of justification that most, if not all, non-free media on Wikipedia should carry. What you need to be asking is not whether having a clip is better than reading the words (of course it is), but whether words alone can carry its intent. Here, they easily can. All the best, Steve T • C 21:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you fundamentally Steve. Try this: "A scene from American Beauty merely showing a man falling for a younger girl, a la Lolita" - and thus the words have described the scene adequately on one level (and remember American Beauty isn't a film that heralded the start of a 47-year old series which has been seen by a quarter of people on earth). Whether you think that brief description fully evokes the scene is another matter - of course it doesn't - but it doesn't in the same was that writing "Bond, James Bond" doesn't fully evoke the scene in the clip under discussion. The use of the phrase "Bond, James Bond" is ingrained in western popular culture and has been parodied and homaged widely in and outside cinema. That this is the first clip of it - the mother lode, if you like - means that it is the perfect clip to use as an identifier: any other clip from any other film would be just that - any other clip, and not the original and most important. A secondary point is that the clip in question is short - only 5.4 seconds long and can claim to be a fair-use snapshot on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because "A scene from American Beauty merely showing a man falling for a younger girl, a la Lolita" is a phrase that more-than-adequately conveys the clip's illustration of thematic intent, how the film scores first-person perceptions of time, the use of non-diegetic music to create and maintain narrative stasis, and ... Oh, wait. :-) Sarcasm aside (and it's meant without an iota of malice), I understand what you're saying, and I'm not denying the significance of the clip. I just think that more high-level analysis and commentary about its significance is required. Everything in the long "purpose of use" for the American Beauty clip is sourced from articles/books cited in the article. However, the few mentions of "Bond, James Bond" in the Dr. No article don't at present go into anywhere near that level of detail, so I don't think a good enough case for inclusion has been made. Has the scene really not been dissected in any high-level journals/books in a way that would give us that justification? Steve T • C 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I’m glad you agree with me that a text summary cannot adequately replace a video clip: my description of the scene in American Beauty captures as much about the scene as the text "Bond, James Bond" would about the clip in question. On some levels, yes, it does cover it, but not adequately. For the Bond scene, would text capture the rich, muted opulence of the surroundings? ...No. Does it capture the suave, almost louche manner in which Bond introduces himself? ...No. Does the text capture the timbre and tone of Connery’s voice? ...No. To put the clip into a text format would seriously detrimental to the overall feel – the coolness, if you like - of Bond. On that basis, does the video "significantly increase readers' understanding"? Well, yes, of course it does. The Bond clip does not need high-level analysis and commentary – very often the best films don’t, because they just work without the need to be told about them – you just have to see them in video to see why and that's why this clip needs to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk • contribs)
Question, not an accusation: do you feel that such an approach skirts too close to WP:OR, in that a clip is deemed significant because an editor says it is, without the secondary "high level analysis and commentary" to ground it? Isn't that the core of WP:V, that such an opinion/fact should be backed up with a reliable source, no matter how obvious it may seem to those knowledgeable about the subject? Steve T • C 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be moving further and further away from the point and I'm not altogether sure why. All the information in the article is cited and there is no WP:OR there whatsoever. A brief (5.4 second) video clip in an article about the film is entirely justifiable, especially when the lines uttered are one of the more famous in cinematic history and have been parodied and homage paid to them both onscreen and off ever since. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not moving away from the point; I'm merely responding to your comment, which in part read, "For the Bond scene, would text capture the rich, muted opulence of the surroundings? ...No. Does it capture the suave, almost louche manner in which Bond introduces himself? ...No. Does the text capture the timbre and tone of Connery’s voice?" What I'm driving at here is that it may border on editor interpretation to include the clip on that basis; these traits are not ones that are described in the article, nor are they attributable to any reliable source in the article (at present). That's why I was asking the question (again, not to accuse, but to hear your opinion). Perhaps I should withdraw from the conversation on this page, however; I recommended you come here to get opinions separate from mine and I don't want to hijack the thread any more than I already have. Steve T • C 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right to point out that the text above is my own opinion: that's why it's here (and uncited) and not in the article where there is justification and it is cited. Just to clarify the origin of the clip, when I started updating the article (with others) there was no thought as to putting a clip on there: it became apparent during the writing process that this was an important issue and we were advised to put a clip in before taking it through GA process. It wasn't, therefore, my interpretation of the clip that decided its use, but a combination of the importance which brought itself though the research and a third party's suggestion. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"It wasn't, therefore, my interpretation of the clip that decided its use, but a combination of the importance which brought itself though the research"—I think this might be my sticking point here; that all sounds well enough, but for me the article text only very lightly supports this intent. The research that highlights the scene's importance is largely limited to its being voted highly in a number of polls. There's no deeper thematic analysis that the clip's inclusion helps to illuminate. (See my reply to DCGeist below for further thoughts on this.) Steve T • C 13:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell. The clip meets all points of NFCC#8 and it is a very important clip.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Easy, easy, easy keep. It never ceases to amaze me how some people here are much more comfortable approaching discreet instances of fair use media inclusion as opportunities for bureaucratic nitpicking, rather than keeping in mind the purpose of our policy on non-free content, which is spelled out very plainly in the three points of our official policy's rationale—which precede those ten lovable criteria. I'll spell them out here and we can see how the item matches up. The purpose of our non-free content policy is...
  • "To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media." Obviously, this item in no way undermines that mission. There is no free content that could replace it, nor any content that will ever plausibly become free in the foreseeable future that could replace it. This is very important. There is nothing about the inclusion of this item that would ever make anyone go, "Oh, we needn't bother finding or generating free content." It is simply, obviously, an item of the sort that cannot be effectively replaced by free media, and so passes the bar of this first rationale easily.
  • "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." It is, quite simply, laughable to imagine that a low-quality, 5.4-second clip from a 49-year-old film widely distributed in digital media used in a completely nonderogatory fashion could place Wikipedia in the slightest bit of legal jeopardy. The item passes the bar of this second rationale easily.
  • "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." The item, for reasons detailed quite articulately above, has been selected, delimited, and formatted in the most judicious fashion. It passes the bar of this third and final rationale easily.
  • It is, in sum, embarrassing that we even have to engage in a debate over this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." And, yes, that's policy.—DCGeist (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • DCGeist, when I see your review comments at FAC or elsewhere, I often find myself agreeing with you, which is why I'm continuing to give this consideration despite my earlier attempt to withdraw from the conversation on this page (which wasn't for any cynical reason, but because of real-life intrusions). In the case of this clip, I think one of the things that makes it difficult for me to accept its inclusion is linked—tangentially—to the comments another reviewer has made about the level of analysis in the article as a whole. I would be a lot better disposed towards inclusion if the scene was subject—in article—to a deeper level of commentary than "it was rated highly in some polls, and by the AFI". Both statements are important, but neither gets to the heart of why the scene is memorable; so shorn of the context that deeper analysis (or, ironically, a longer video sample) would provide, the clip, for me, becomes borderline decorative. Are we also ignoring that there may be a more useful place for the clip than this article? It seems to me that it's the quotation itself, used in multiple films across the series, rather than this specific instance of it, that is often considered memorable (would the quote be as well remembered if it only appeared in Dr. No? We'll never know). So perhaps there would be a better claim for inclusion in an expanded franchise article. Am I leaning towards a too-strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#8? I don't think so, though I'm willing to accept I've made a mistake. At the very least, the article nominator can rest easy in the knowledge that my opposition (or otherwise) is unlikely to change the course of this FAC; I'm not a "known" media licence expert at WP:FAC, and so the closing delegates are far more likely to heed the input of subsequent media reviewers when it comes to weighing that aspect of WP:WIAFA. All the best, Steve T • C 13:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - replace with longer audio clip I recognize the scene/phrase is one of critical discussion, but the visual aspects of this scene are not critical; it is instead the audio side, not just how Connery stated it but was the movie clip cuts out - the subtle swell of the Bond theme music right in line with it. The audio clip, while still non-free, is "freer" than the video clip, and would be a better representation of the scene. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting suggestion, but Dr. No is a film, not a radio broadcast or audio book. I think that it really should be the original media only, especially as the music in the background also plays a part. The music aspect is one of the elements that has been highlighted in the recent edits. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree about the music- which is why an audio sample which can be longer than a film clip may be better, because the tie-in of Connery's delivery with the Bond theme. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And the cigarette lighting? Have a look at the new section, which covers a few new aspect. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete; arguments have been advanced on both sides. We have supporters arguing that this clip is "important" or even "seminal" (ugh); are there multiple good quality sources that speak to this importance? Bringing them out might sway me. Meantime, per our free content mission, in cases of doubt we default to deleting nonfree content. --John (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That's not correct. If the use is contested and discussion doesn't trend to keep or delete, NFC does not require nor endorse its deletion. But this doesn't clear the image/media for indefinite allowable use, as it can be challenged at a later time. This is specific when the issue is primarily NFCC#8, a highly subjective metric, while all other aspects of NFC policy have been met. In this case, while I would agree with deleting the movie clip, its clear that there's no clear violation of any of the objective NFC metrics, and thus we need to be more cautious. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Removing the clip from the article actually then makes the case of removing the clip from Wikipedia mandatory, since its presence on Wikipedia depends on an FUR that stipulates its use in the article. The clip should stay in the article until the issue is resolved one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The scene is discussed in the text body in the context of its cultural impact, so the clip gives readers a useful reference point for what they are reading i.e. I think most people will agree that the article text discussing the scene is better appreciated if you are familiar with the scene, so it seems to me it meets the requirement of the NFCC. I don't agree that an audio sample would be more valid in this case because we aren't actually discussing the sound (or even the words), we are describing the impact of a scene: this entails not just the vocal delivery of the words, but the visual context and the body language of the actor as well. I think in describing the scene, the case is stronger for the full clip rather than just an aduio sample. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There have now been further edits to highlight the scene, including third party references to its iconic nature. Yes, John, this is indeed seminal. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Per WP:DONTNEEDIMAGE "the threshold is not whether someone can possibly understand the text at all without the image, but whether the image significantly improves that understanding."--WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to keep the sound byte, and usage looks like it's within the criteria at WP:NFCC. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:55, 19 September 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:Texas Longhorn logo.svg

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} This image is currently tagged as free due to age of copyright (published before 1923), however, it has been tagged in the past as being non-free ([1]).

The argument for it being free appears to stem from this article: [2] where a date of 1913 is given, but specifically this only applies to the word "Longhorns": It was not until 1913, when H.J. Lutcher Stark, a prominent benefactor of the university, made a donation of blankets with the word "Longhorns" sewn into it, that our mascot's name came into existence.. It says nothing of the image of the steer head.

Counter, this article [3] discusses the 50th anniversary of the logo (published in 2011, making the logo copyrighted in 1961), but before I say that's a shut case making the logo non-free, the article specifically discusses how the steer head appeared on many non-official forms before that point. This could create a case that the extraneous use of the logo before 1961 would make the act of copyrighting it ineligible -- but that's a case I can't be sure of.

This does appear to affect the use of the image across a number of articles and if it can be used on a template, so we need to be sure of which way the image should be tagged. I am not seeking deletion of this image, only to clear up the licensing. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like first to sincerely thank Masem for starting a venue of civil discussion, not deletion, regarding the image.
Second, it should be noted that there are MANY official uses of the logo prior to 1978 which do not have any copyright markings whatsoever. Accordingly, the image is in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. If we go with 1913, the difference is only which justification we use. It is PD either way. Buffs (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Lacking a copyright statement on the image does not disqualify a pre-1978 image from copyright protection - if it was registered by UTexas with the Copyright Office, they can show that logo without copyright markings; as it was pre 1963 (1961 is the date I'm running with), they would have had to reregister it on the 28th year, 1989. (This from [4]). I'm not hitting there on searching (the original copyright is before the start of the records, the renewal afterwards).
The 1913 date is a red herring. As the article linked clearly states, it only is the word Longhorn adopted then. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary, a copyrighted work of art was required to be published with a copyright notice prior to 1978 or it fell into the public domain. In any case, I could not find a copyright registered with the US Copyright Office (lots of longhorn works of art like statues, but none were the logo we are looking for); FWIW I searched "longhorn" and "Texas" under the category "Visual Materials" and came up with 419 results...none were owned by the University of Texas. Buffs (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"longhorn logo" under visual materials only came up with 3 "solid" hits and those were are for bracelets and belt buckles. Buffs (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I tried to search too, but the records are only as old as 1978 for online searching; one would have to access the paper records, supposedly around 1961, to check that. Note that omission of the copyright notice for pre 1978 works generally is an indicator that the work failed to be copyrighted, but per the Circular 22 document from the copyright office, For works first published before 1978, the complete absence of a copyright notice from a published copy generally indicates that the work is not protected by copyright. -- implying there are cases where there may be copyright protection, such as accidental omission. Remember, its first publication, not subsequent publications, so we have to look at the first 1961 official use. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, yes, it is required to be on all publications, not just the first one. Failure to continually annotate that the design is copyrighted fails to live up to the requirements of copyright at the time (one of the reasons the law was changed was that it was quite cumbersome): example: all books are listed as copyrighted, but not just the first one published. Accidental omission is one thing (and it had to be an aberration...such as a machine making a mistake when stamping "(c)"), however, there are lots of photos of the helmets used by the football players and not a single one has a copyright notice. It is also important to note that copyright under those laws was an affirmative defense; back then, you had to show you were attempting to protect your copyright and defend it when violated(much as trademark protections are today). It seems to me that the logo is quite clearly PD, but trademarked. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Trademark isn't the issue here, which doesn't influence NFC. I wouldn't call being painted/decaled onto the site of a helmet as "publishing" but I'm sure there's more traditional things where the logo was published sans the copyright notice. I still don't think this is open/shut, but certainly weighs in favor of the image being PD due to lack of copyright, but I'm not 100% convinced that it is the case. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As shown in the pictures I first mentioned, it was available on clothing in what seems to be prior to color photography becoming mainstream (pre-1960/70?). As for the rest of your comment ("I wouldn't call being painted/decaled onto the site of a helmet as 'publishing'..."), the Universal Copyright Convention disagrees: "publication" is defined in article VI as "the reproduction in tangible form and the general distribution to the public of copies of a work from which it can be read or otherwise visually perceived" (emphasis mine). Buffs (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Though the original date of publishing of the image is not immediately determinable from this discussion, it is clear that it was published prior to 1978 and that the use of a copyright symbol or other means of indicating protection was not consistently used, which does not satisfy the then-requirements of a copyrighted publication. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this editor, it is assumed to be in the public domain per pre-1978 U.S. copyright law. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:06, 19 September 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:Shaurya Missile.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Indian government hasn't made it easy for others to get photos of that one, as far as I can tell, so I think this is a valid exception until they do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As per George, this one seems to be a reasonable fair use qualifier. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion top}}

File:BNL Variety.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} It is an image of an album cover important to its article. ChineseLamps (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted per WP:F4 -no licensing information. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:04, 25 September 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:KatyPerryCIKissedAGirl.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} The image fails criteria #8: contextual significance for WP:NFC. It does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the I Kissed a Girl video, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. The article already contains one non-free image ( the album cover) which provides the same visual information as the screenshot. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true. You should nominate the image for deletion. – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah... I'm in the wrong place. Now listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 26. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Listed this in the wrong place. Now nominated for deletion. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:50, 27 September 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:CanadaPeaceBridgeStamp.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Template states "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. " Yet, the only use is for the Peace Bridge (a "thing[] appearing in the stamp's design").Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion. Nothing else to see here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:21, 3 September 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:Shaurya Missile.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Removed from all but the article on the missile itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I've listed all of Enthusiast10's files for deletion at FFD, for being blatant abuses of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is different to all the others (they were replacable photos of vehicles), and I was hoping for a second opinion on this. It looks OK to me, but due to the uploader's history of lack of respect for the NFCC, I'm listing this here in case I've missed something. Thanks in advance, Acather96 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Indian government hasn't made it easy for others to get photos of that one, as far as I can tell, so I think this is a valid exception until they do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As per George, this one seems to be a reasonable fair use qualifier. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate for Shaurya missile. Although another image would be nice, I do not think this one is essential enough to the reader's understanding at India and weapons of mass destruction and Integrated Guided Missile Development Program to warrant use of a nonfree image. Cptnono (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Cptnoro. This image should only be used for Shaurya missile. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No action on this for far too long, so I did it myself. I put into practice the Cptnono suggestion, and I'm closing this as done. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 6 December 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:Bug Music Logo.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Deleted.

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

Uploader has a history of copy-vio's and NFCC abuses, and while most of them are blatant , this one isn't so obvious. Used in Tom McGrath, the FUR claims it's use is justified as it identifies the indiviual's ownership of the company, though I don't see how the use of a logo in a section enhances the reader's understanding of the topic at all - it's purely decorative. File:Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.png also has a very similar issue on the same page and is included in this nomination. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • This one isn't even close. I removed all three non-free images from the article. Just because the guy is associated with these things (and a whole host of other things to boot) doesn't mean we get to included non-free images depicting their logos. Blatant violation of WP:NFCC, and I removed them as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 1 October 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:Obaidullah photo.PDF

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Involved close, but judging by the redlink, this was deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

When File:Obaidullah photo.PDF was uploaded, about 14 months ago, it was uploaded with a {{PD-USGov}} liscense, but no source. The text uploaded to accompany the image contradicted this liscense, saying the image came from his lawyers.

A couple of months ago a bot added a {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template to the image.

I figure this image is not really a candidate for transfer to the commons, because we can't document that it is in the public domain. It may well qualify for {{PD-Afghanistan}} -- but only if we can document its source.

I added {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{non-free fair use in}} to the image. I figure it may qualify for inclusion, under fair use. I figured others who focus on images will take the position that the lack of an explicit source will be a problem for its inclusion.

I am going to try to upload the original uploader. I would appreciate it if this discussion played out, and wasn't changed to a speedy, so some time was available to look for the image's source. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete The source, "Photo came from his attorneys." dosen't specify who took the photo or who owns it. I removed PD-USGov as it can't be substantiated, and I removed the long, POV rant from Geo Swan that stipulated the possibility of PD-Afghanistan, because it also can't be substantiated. Without authorship/attribution information, there is no other course of action than but to delete the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't a file be discussed at either WP:Non free content review or WP:Files for deletion -- but not both? I suggest the discussion should be continued here, and that Sven's initiation of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 23#File:Obaidullah photo.PDF should be closed as inadvertent forum shopping.

      Sven and I agree that if a source for the image can't be found the image doesn't belong on either the wikipedia or the commons.

      However, I suggest Sven's removal of my first draft of the "purpose" field the {{Non-free use rationale}} was intemperate. Contributors discussing this image are enttitled to know someone made a good faith attempt to supply a policy-compliant rationale, and they are entitled to discuss that first draft, and make their own suggestions regarding its adequacy, and whether it can be improved.

      Obaidullah was a nobody when he was captured, a youth who ran a small stall in an Afghan bazaar. The possibility that, prior to his capture, a foreigner took this image is vanishingly small. An image taken by his family, an image taken by Afghan security offcials, or an image taken by an employee of the DoD, or CIA would be in the public domain.

      I think everyone will agree that we need a source for the image. I hope any additional contributors who weigh in on this discussion will comment on the issue of whether this image met the other criteria for including images here as fair use. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

      • You do not get to pick and choose requirements, if it fails any requirement, it gets deleted, period. Therefore I have asked for the FfD to continue (at the FfD page). I also have responded to Geo Swan on my talk page in regards to why I removed the clearly non-neutral prose from the file description page (in short, because it was non-neutral). A bare bones, neutrally worded replacement has been inserted. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • No one gets to pick and choose the policies and guidelines they are going to comply with. I dispute I was doing that. Every single place I have spoken about this image, (1) on the uploader's talk page, (2) on the file's talk page, (3) on Sven Manguard's talk page, and (4) when I initiated this discussion I have been clear that we need a source for the image.

          I think that source can be found. So, since a discussion has been initiated, I encourage those commenting to give some thought as to whether the image would qualify for fair use inclusion if a source was found. Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

          • Whatever, I've long since had enough of you. The FfD closes on the 30th. You have between four and five days to find a source that specifies authorship information, before it gets deleted for not having one. Failing that, you can reload the image if you get a hold of a proper source at a later date. In the mean time, I'm moving on, as I see no good reason to engage in discussion with you. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:31, 26 October 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:Proposed_Ontario_flag.gif

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Deleted before discussion could take place at this forum. Sven Manguard Wha?

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

This file was created as a derivative work, using the stylized trillium from another author's work. JDM1991 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 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:Proposed_Vermont_flag.gif

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Deleted before discussion could take place at this forum. Sven Manguard Wha?

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

This file was created as a derivative work, copying a star from and to another's author's work. JDM1991 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 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:WildBeastCW.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Deleted by Magog the Ogre per CSD F7 on 3 November 2011.

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

Taken from the Canada's Wonderland website. Easily replaceable by anybody going to the park with a camera, and therefore not a very strong fair-use rationale. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you should take it to Files for Deletion with the same rationale you used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was the result of this page as well? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is more for images where you may not be sure if the image is appropriate or not, not whether you're sure it should be deleted. And even in a case like this, starting here if you don't know for sure is not harmful - never wrong to ask. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Masem is right, it never hurts to ask. I was simply confirming that your gut feeling was right. The difference between this forum and FfD is that FfD noms get cleared every day (after seven days, in most cases) by one of a small core of admins that work there every day. Items on this forum get cleared whenever an admin happens to come along close inactive open discussions, which could be much longer than seven days. That's why I advise FfD in clear cases, or in cases that become clear. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I slapped on {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} for now. Hopefully that will stick the course and it'll be gone come Monday. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:02, 26 October 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:Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Masem's explanation is good, marking as closed after a month+ of no activity. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The images use on the Steve Jobs article fails NFCC#8, as the article doesn't contain (sourced) critical commentary about the image. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heck, that's a specific example outlined in WP:NFC#UUI #9. Removed from the article but completely fair on the article about the book itself. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 26 October 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:Still8 Human Centipede cropped.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Situation withdrawn, file kept as there is/was no violation.

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

I'm a relative newcomer here. But from the best of my knowledge this should NOT be a CC-BY-SA licensed file given that it is a direct crop from the movie scene. And apparently now it is on the main page as the feature article. Correct me if I'm wrong a fair-use rational should be created by the creator or if not suitable for fair use it should be DELETED. Yong (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the original commons file, the film production company gave permission to put that image into the CC-BY-SA, and thus meaning the derivative work ( the cropped version on the front page) is just as ok as a free image. Normally yes, a screenshot from a movie would normally be non-free, but if permission is given as it was in this case, it can be free. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
My bad. Didn't see the OTRS ticket from the original file before I posted this. Thank you for your clarification. --Yong (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem; its a unique situation, and always fair game to check. Though one thing is that generally, the front page team will have tripled checked any image for the front page for its free naute. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 31 October 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:100th infantry battalion.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Template and license change made. Discussion closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is marked as a non-free logo, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a US government PD work. Can someone evaluate this and change it if possible? Dominic·t 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The signature at the bottom all but confirms that it is a work of the U.S. government. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:22, 16 November 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:HKIA_NSC.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} Almost definitely replaceable (as you can see, no replacability noted [and other things missing]):Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#F7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 8 December 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:Lot b763 sp-lpc warsaw 111101 1-1-.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

{{discussion top}} I believe image violates a number of NFCC guidelines for the article LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. Main one has to be violating NFCC#1. It is possible that someone has taken a picture of this event and could theoretically release the photo under a compatible license (CC or PD). Failing this, other airliner incident articles have used reasonable representations of the airplanes in question (Example: Airlines PNG Flight 1600, an aircraft incident from over a month back which uses a picture of a similar aircraft owned by the company as it's image. The 2011 Reno Air Races crash has a picture of the aircraft in question that was involved in the crash for a more specific example.) In addition, Wikicommons has several images of the plane involved in the incident pre-crash. In some articles, artist interpretations have been made and used without incident. (Example: Helios Airways Flight 522 uses an artist rendition of the incident, so does Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, Korean Air Lines Flight 902, etc., etc. NFCC#8 is also not met, as a reasonable facsimile could be made, per examples Helios Airways Flight 522, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 & Korean Air Lines Flight 902 among others. Also, it violates NFCC#3 (the image is too big for fair-use). Is my assumptions right?--Cesario (JPN) (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I think there is a good chance that this does qualify as fair use (if it is reduced in size, but that's easily done). The reason is that although there are free images of this aircraft before the incident, there are none that have surfaced of plane during the event in question, and it is the event that is the subject of the article not the plane (which is not notable other than for being involved in this incident). Most other aviation accidents are not directly comparable in this regard as they use an old, free image of the aircraft (or a similar one) because neither free nor unfree images of the actual incident exist. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 is in a similar position, there is a fair use image used (File:Ditching of Ethiopian Airlines Flt 961.JPG) of the actual incident because no free image exists (JetBlue Airways Flight 292 has a free image, so is not comparable). I do not think that the artists impressions are comparable either, as in almost all circumstances they are used when no non-free photograph exists either, so they're using it as a choice between artist's impression and no image, rather than artist's impression or fair use. While it was reasonable to assume at first that, given the number of people at the airport videoing and photographing this incident that a free image might be released, we're now over two weeks since the incident and none have been. I think it's unlikely that any more images of the incident are going to emerge, with the exception of some in monthly magazines but these are going to be similarly unfree. Given this, I think it is fair to state that no free images are known to exist and it's significantly unlikely that any do exist. Regarding NFCC#8, an image of the actual event as it happened is clearly not something that could be conveyed in words alone as it involves several elements that anyone who is not a fire service employee at an airport that handles wide-body airliners (or possibly who designs or builds wide-body airliners) will be able to accurately picture - and even then all they will normally have seen is the theory. I've looked to see if there was a free image available of a similar belly landing, but the closest I've come is File:A-1H VA-152 CVW-16 wheelsup DaNang Dec1965.jpg which shows the aftermath of the belly landing of a single-seat fighter jet in South Vietnam in 1965, which is not at all similar to the in-progress belly landing of a wide-body transatlantic airliner in Poland in 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
NFCC#1 can't apply: as a unique event, we cannot assure there is a free replacement from that same event that shows the belly landing. There might be a free version or someone willing to put it out into free, but that's different from, say, knowing that a person is alive and just having to go out to get a free photo of them.
NFCC#3 on image size can always be fixed, and not a reason alone for deletion/removal. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've now uploaded a reduced size version (280px vs 750px) so it now meets NFCC#3. I presume the larger size can/will now be deleted but I'm unsure what (if anything) we do about attribution for the original uploader? Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to delete the "image" associated with a file change without touching the change itself, in other words, an admin can remove the larger image but keep the history of the original uploader's contribution. So no problems there. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I tried to do that, but it gave the impression that I'd deleted the entire revision. So I tried to undelete it and that failed as it was already undeleted. Now the logs show that I deleted it, and didn't undelete it, but it is still there so I am mighty confused! I'm going to ask for help at WP:AN. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F7b. None of the arguments that have been brought forward for keep above has addressed the fact that this is a commercial news agency picture, which makes deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 16 December 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:Taste of Utopia.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
File nominated for deletion; eligible for speedy deletion under criteria F5. Nothing else to see here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded this image for use in Golden Domes. The photo is discussed in the text based on a newspaper account about the taking of the photo. I believe it is a unique and irreplaceable image of an important event which adds to the understanding of the reader in ways which the sources alone do not convey.

(Separately, I also have a different copy of the same image, which was printed with the newspaper account the next day. That copy is quite different from this version, implying that it was retouched to paint in a green lawn and trees. While there are no sources which say so, the juxtaposition would make that apparent to readers. I am considering adding it but have not decided on it yet.)

User:Redtigerxyz gave his opinion that the image fails NFCC in two ways: 1) no free alternative and 2) contextual significance: that there could be other photographs of the event, and that the image does not help readers significantly. We had a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Golden Domes#Taste of Utopia assembly photo. The article is currently nominated for Good Article, but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have gone out of my way to flag this, but Red might be right on this one. Honestly, the NFCC #8 arguement is probably strong enough here, since it's just a large group of calm people standing in a column, there's not much that the photo adds. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to come late to the discussion, but I'd agree with Red and Sven here. The buildings are still standing, it's entirely possible to take a photo of them. The article is not about the Taste of Utopia event (for which the nonfree image would be irreplaceable if no free ones exist), it is about the Golden Domes. That can be replaced with any image whatsoever of them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:19, 27 December 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:Julio Olarticoechea.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
File is currently deleted. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This image was uploaded on 2007 and tagged with {{PD-AR-Photo}}. However, at that time, the license tag did not apply, and the image was copyrighted as it was created 20 years ago in 2007. Although now the license tag still applies, the history log explains all. In 2007, that would have been speedily deleted for failing to meet WP:NFCC. If this review is inappropiate, should this file be reported to WP:Copyright problems? --Gh87 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of what should have happened four years ago when this image was first uploaded, I see two issues with it as it currently stands. First, it should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} since it's copyright term had not expired in 1996 when the URAA restored U.S. copyrights to works first published outside the U.S. Second, if it's possible that the photo was created in 1986, it's Argentinian copyright won't expire until January 1, 2012 (terms of copyright run through the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire). —RP88 (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Even that tag won't help keep this file; I won't add it until the review will have been closed. The source link is dead and nowhere found. That could be copyright infringement. --Gh87 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The point about {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} wasn't intended as an argument to keep the file — it's an argument for why this image may not be PD US. Irrespective of PD status in the source country, English Wikipedia requires all images be either (a) PD US, (b) freely licensed, or (c) meet NFCC. Since we can't confirm a free license or PD US, this image needs to meet NFCC — which it clearly currently does not. It might be possible to get this image to meet NFCC, but you are correct, we'd need to track down the true source. —RP88 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) First, we must replace this version with the image from the prior pre-1987 source. This version originated from some website that is now dead. Are the administrators reading this? --Gh87 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Which of the NFCC criteria do you believe requires this? I don't believe that to be necessary. Per NFCC 10a we need to identify the source of the material. However, we don't actually need to replace the image with one directly obtained from that source, it's OK if an image passes though someone's hands before reaching WP. —RP88 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't NFCC imply that it's okay to keep this version while to source the other prior publication to this version? Do administrators approve this? As for this image, #1 may require this, doesn't it? --Gh87 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. As I mentioned above, this image clearly currently does not meet the non-free content criteria. —RP88 (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The quick answer: He's a living person. Ergo, we do not allow non-free images since it is possible to obtain a free image of this person. Thus this image will never qualify for use on WP. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
So this image is technically non-free ever since, correct? --Gh87 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to events according to history logs, should this be tagged with {{db-f7}}? --George Ho (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

By the letter of the law, Masem is correct. He's alive, therefore we can't have free pictures of him. In reality, he's an inactive player, so arguments could be made that there is no free use image of him looking as he did as a player, and therefore a non-free image could be used. Those arguements would be weak, however. In light of this, I'm putting this up at FfD, since this issue hasn't received attention in some time. On a related note, the person most likely to have a possibally free image of this person is Julio Olarticoechea himself, and if someone's up to it, shooting his press agent (if he still has one), or someone else related to him an email asking for a freely licensed picture might be a way to get an image. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


File:Leopoldo Melo & Vicente Gallo.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Don't worry: this discussion is temporarily closed for now. This discussion continues in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 2. Do not move this discussion into archives until the other discussion there has been resolved. --Gh87 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This copyright of image might have expired in Argentina. However, I have found records of the first copyright registration for the English-language edition of A History of Argentina (Historia de la Nación Argentina) by Ricardo Levene from the 1938 catalog. The editor and translator was William Spence Robertson. Also, I have found the renewal registration from the 1965 catalog. The copyright registrant was Gertrude Robertson. Therefore, this image may be copyrighted in the United States if it is in the English editions. --Gh87 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you consider taking this to WP:PUF? PUF is for files tagged as available under a free license or public domain, but you dispute the source or licensing information. NFCR (i.e. here) is for files tagged as non-free content, but you want to discuss it's compliance with WP:NFCC. —RP88 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Mario Roberto Álvarez.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
FUR and license added. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

This image was uploaded two years ago and should have been speedily deleted. Never mind the copyright status in the USA, which is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. However, what do we do with this image? --Gh87 (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that he is deceased, the NFCC allows for this image to be used. If someone can find a better image, I'm all for replacing this one, but otherwise this is fine, once it gets properly templated. I'm not familiar enough with the URAA stuff. Would you mind doing it?
I added a FUR and proper license tag, marking as closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 14 February 2012 (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:Jacques Maroger SelF-Portrait.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Handled by Masem. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Right now, File:Jacques Maroger SelF-Portrait.jpg is being used in the infobox of Jacques Maroger. It is a self-portrait, so it appears its use there could count as either a) a visual depicition of him, or b) an example of his work. Is this a valid example of fair use? If so, could someone write the rationale on the image page or help me to do so? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's both, which makes it doubly-good for serving two uses. And because he's passed away, it would be an acceptable use of non-free for that article. I've tidied the rational up a bit, but it should be fine now. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 12 November 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:Golden Girls title card.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrew a review of this image. Obviously meets WP:NFC, including NFCC, right now. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from "concern" parameter of a deletion tag:

This image contains the title logo. This logo is ineligible for copyright because it contains simple words and text that may lack threshold of originality. Moreover, registrations for trademarks have not been found in http://www.uspto.gov/. Nevertheless, {{trademark}} may apply to unregistered trademarks if possible. However, this image is a screenshot of the copyrighted derivative work intended as the opening of the copyrighted series. Moreover, the background is the skyline of a city. Therefore, as said in the rationale, no such free or public domain images of this copyrighted work exists, and this image does not violate NFCC#1

However, per my talk page with Aussie person, there have been no guidelines that require mentioning use of trademarks in WP:LOGOS and such. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

NFCC cares absolutely nothing if a work is trademarks or not; or more specifically, trademark issues don't come into play when evaluating whether we are respecting trademark or not, though through the general image use policy, we do ask that trademarked elements be used appropriately.
That said, there is no clear NFCC violation. Though the title text itself would be in-eligible for copyright under threshold of originality, its use over a backdrop of Miami (or some city, I forget which for the show) is copyrighted. There is no free replacement here without creating a derivative work (eg: I could get a similar background and recreate the text, but it would clearly be inspired by that title card). Using Title cards to identify television shows is a reasonably accepted use of non-free media, so all other parts of NFCC appear to be met. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that there is no need to discuss trademarks anymore in regards to NFCC. I guess: it is a derivative work, according to NFCC, to identify the show. If there is no need to discuss trademarks outside the NFCR and NFCC-related, then I should adjust the rationale, shouldn't I? Meanwhile, I'll clean up my edits per this review. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It's really not a "derivative work" in the broader sense of the term: taking the screengrab from the DVDs to produce a still, the copyright is still owned by the show creators. Simply: it is an NFCC image (it will never qualify for free image until copyright experiences) and very likely satisfies all 10 NFCC requirements, though as you note the rationale could be buffed up abit. But there's no chance that that image would ever be deleted from WP for violating any NFCC aspect, it is completely within bounds of acceptable uses of such images. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "Other information". I am doing my best to clean up my edits. Reply if you can. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine fair-use image. There is no reason to create a free alternative of the text overlayed on a free image of Miami, because that would pervert the ability of the image to accurately depict the title card of the show. Here we don't care that it's the name of the show on an image of Miami; we do care that it's the title card of the show. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


File:GoodSamClubLogo.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not sure this image meets WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) nor WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) on the RV page. Looks distinctly spammy to me - especially with the website showing so clearly. Just thought I'd get a second opinion though as I don't work heavily in the filespace. WormTT · (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It didn't even have a rationale for RV, so that's been removed and tidied. Not sure it should be on the Affinity Group Inc. page, though that makes more sense. A look on google shows that there are a number of versions of the logo, so should we be using the one with the URL in it - I've got a gut feeling it's wrong, but can't seem to find the reason. WormTT · (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It is now only in the article on the club, I removed it from the article on Affinity, as it was inappropriate there. Because for some reason Wikipedia is able to justify the use of non-free logos, the remaining instance is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think an easy answer for replacing it is that the URL does not appear to be part of the logo's registered trademark. The Ⓡ symbol can be seen on the logo without the URL on the front page of the company's website. We do not need to show the website's address to convey what the logo does on its own. In regards to Worm's gut feeling: If it looks like it could be interpreted as advertising then it is best to err on the side of caution. I think reasoning based on common interpretation of policy can also be provided. The usage of watermarks is discouraged according to policy over at Commons (not binding here). the explanation at Commons links to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Although "advertising" is not mentioned a single time at NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING specifically highlights that "All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style." I understand that labeling the website address as a "watermark" is a little off and that I am stretching the connection between policies a bit. But it is obvious to anyone who has spent anytime here that editor's on Wikipedia and its sister projects often reduce what could be interpreted as marketing.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the logo with a similar one image that does not contain the URL or the uncommon border around the face.[5] Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Seven Stages of Action.JPG (plus two others)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a scan of a diagram from a book. It's not cover art, despite what the tag says. The fair-use rationale is "Used as a reference to explain Norman's seven stages of action" but that doesn't sound valid to me. The diagram really is helpful in explaining the content, and it's so simple that I doubt a replacement free-use diagram could be made without infringing on the original. The article Seven stages of action includes two other such diagrams. --Pnm (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Easiest solution would be to replace all three of them with plain text, which looks doable, then have the three images deleted as unused non-free images (they also fail the NFCC since they can be replicated in plain text). Sven Manguard Wha? 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Closing as inactive. Future Perfect's analysis is sound enough, and as is normal for this page, there hasn't been nearly enough traffic here to really get a lively discussion with multiple opinions. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Multiple tags claiming public domain because it was a song by Mozart, GFDL released because of the author and being non-free if not. Source is listed as:

  • Reti, Rudolph (1958). Tonality, Atonality, Pantonality: A study of some trends in twentieth century music. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313204780.

— Moe ε 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question or concern? Hyacinth (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How's it look now? Hyacinth (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use is not valid here, because it's easily replaceable by a free image (the score without annotations) and a textual explanation of Reti's analysis. That said, I don't think the annotations are sufficient to warrant copyright protection, so File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.png should be PD in my opinion. For example, IMSLP regularly hosts scans of recently published musical scores of old pieces; it is generally thought that such annotations are too trivial for copyright protection. Regardless of the status of the PNG, File:Mozart-Reti - The Magic Flute.mid is definitely PD because it has no trace of Reti's material. I have modified the tag to reflect that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout now? Hyacinth (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this one. I think some things have become a bit mixed up in the discussion. There are three potential aspects of creative content at issue here: (a) Mozart's music: obviously PD. (b) Reti's analysis, as expressed through placement of marks above certain notes: that analysis, I would argue, is probably copyrightable, unless you were to argue that it involves only an abstract "idea" and not its concrete "expression". If it's copyrightable, it's legitimate fair use, because Reti's technique of analysis is the precisely the object of discussion in the article. It's also not replaceable, because the technique can only be illustrated with an authentic example of itself, and it cannot be suitably covered in text, because of the complex nature of musical notation, which resists reduction to words. (c) the concrete graphical realization of the music example through musical typesetting. As far as I understand, this is in fact not Reti's own graphics (from a 1958 print publication), but Hyacinth's re-setting of it, so there's no problem with that either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 22 December 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:Kubica crash.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
It has been removed from the third article and left in the first and second. Since this hasn't seen any action since last year, I implemented this as a compromise between the two points made here. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

This image is used in three articles, Robert Kubica, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix and Canadian Grand Prix. It has the same FUR for the first two articles that I consider to be perfectly valid and acceptable.

It doesn't have a rationale for Canadian Grand Prix, and while the rationale used for the other two articles could be used for this third article, I'm not sure it is valid to use it on the specific 2007 Canadian Grand Prix article and the generic Canadian Grand Prix article. I would like opinions on this from people more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you find that unacceptable. However, WP:NFCC #10c is clear as it says "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" and further that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". I do not believe a valid rationale can be written for any of the uses, so I'm sure not going to write one when I don't believe it can or should be done. Further, I don't see any requirement anywhere that I have to notify someone that I'm enforcing policy in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • First, I removed the linking of the one rationale to 2007 Canadian Grand Prix. Group rationales are unacceptable, as is clear from WP:NFCC #10c, which requires a separate, specific rationale for each use. As to the image being used on any of these articles, I frankly don't see the argument. The reality of these (and indeed most) race cars is they are designed to come apart to some degree to reduce forces being applied to a driver. Crumple zones, breakaways, etc. It makes for much more violent looking crashes than 40 years ago, but the reality is drivers are considerably safer because of these design elements. Indeed, Kubica wasn't even seriously injured in this wreck. So, most crashes beyond fender benders tend to look pretty violent. Doubt this? have a look at the 6k+ results from pumping "F1 crashes" into Google images [6]. I see this image as being rather mundane within that context. There is no secondary sourcing in any of the articles testifying to this crash being particularly significant and notable beyond any other humdrum crash. There is some discussion at Robert_Kubica#2007, but it doesn't really point to this crash being all that significant. In summary, I don't really see a need for this image on any article at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Other than it being the most notable event of the Grand Prix, and probably being the most notable incident of the entire 2007 season? Certainly prior to the 2011 crash he was involved in, it is arguably the most notable incident of Kubica's career. While F1 cars are designed to crumple in crashes, it's not the case that modern F1 cars regularly fly through the air and crumple almost every single crumple zone on the car on a regular basis. Far, far from a reliable source, but two separate youtube users ranked this as the one of the 5 most significant F1 accident in "the past 10 years" (in one case) and "of 2000-2010" in another (I think one had it in 1st place the other about 3rd or 4th). To me this says there is a clear justification for including the images on the two articles. I am completely unsure about Canadian Grand Prix, which is why I started this review. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have a cite asserting Kubica's 2007 crash being the most notable incident of the 2007 season? The google images link I provided certainly seems to show one hell of a lot of crashes where the vehicle went airborne. In fact, an article from France24.com titled "The most spectacular F1 crashes" doesn't even mention Kubica. I agree; I don't see a YouTube user as being a reliable source. How is this crash, which he came away with minor injuries, the most notable incident of his career? I dare say that's a major stretch when his 2011 crash resulted in partial amputation of his arm. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I copied the rationale for the Grand Prix article, and tweaked the wording on each to be more-specific. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the image is justifiable in 2007 Canadian Grand Prix (as the most notable indicent in the race), and in Robert Kubica (as the most notable incident in his career before his 2011 crash). It could be argued that it's justifiable in Canadian Grand Prix, as one of the most notable incidents in the history of the race, but I think it's a much weaker argument than for the other two articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 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_12&oldid=1142534155"