Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

File:Usain Bolt wins the 100m metres final at the Moscow World Athletics Championships 2013 as lightning flashes over the stadium.jpg

{{archive top}} This is an AFP photo of an event at this week’s World Athletics Championships, used in Usain Bolt. My main concerns are:

• How can we know this soon after the event that this photo will be historically significant enough to meet the very narrow circumstances under which we can use commercial agency photos? (The photo went viral but this would not automatically give it historic significance.)
• Does this meet WP:NFCC#2 considering that using it now is when it is most likely to deprive the copyright holder of income, as its commercial value will be at its peak so soon after the event? January (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded this image. It's "historical significance" lies in the "two bolts", very unlikely to be repeated, and this of course is why it went viral, capturing the public imagination all over the world. It has already been widely hailed as the best (or one of the best) sports photos ever taken. The Daily Mail citation I gave it said was a piece precisely to that effect. That alone is notable enough for it be documented and reproducing it is fair use.

The image is low resolution and will not deprive the copyright holders of income. It had already been massively reproduced in newspapers all over the world.

What were your other concerns?

Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The copyright aspect is different given this is a press image, as an image at any size will be a problem (low-resolution thumbs they will sell to websites to use for stories). So we need to have a very strong reasoning to use this to the point where the picture itself likely needs to be notable, not just that the picture is "historically significant" to overcome the NFCC#2 problem. Is there more than just the Sun article that talks about the image? --MASEM (t) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Masem. It was a UK Daily Mail article I cited, but there were many others I could have cited that ran stories specifically on the image Huffington Post, Toronto Star, NBC, Amateur Photographer and many others. Agence France Presse, one of the copyright holders, put up a blog specifically about the image that I also cited. Googling on "Usain Bolt lightning bolt image" gives about 10,000 results Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonably fair coverage to allow us to justify the image itself. (It's potentially trending to be a separate article, but it's smart to keep it part of Bolt's page for now), at least in my opinion. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Masem. I also think it's likely it will make its own article in time, but I wouldn't have the technical expertise to comment on it. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO it does need more sourced commentary in the article otherwise it is or could be subject to a F7 delete request. LGA _talk^edits 02:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources tend to be pretty repetitive on this. But the "Amateur Photographer" piece does give some new technical info, so I've added that. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Should be removed as violating NFCC#2 and #8. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding commentary just to justify the fair use. The question is whether the image is needed to support the commentary, not vice versa. January (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really true, though there is likely a problem of undue weight that if one has to add a lot of information that is otherwise out of place to justify the inclusion of the image, which arguably is the case here - one has to divert the flow of the article to stop and talk about this specific photograph. But it is completely reasonable to be developing an article, fine a non-free image that you feel must be included, and then weave in text to support that image that otherwise continues to flow with the rest of the prose; yes, best results happen when there's already text that leads to including that image, but adding more text is neither wrong nor harmful as long as the prose continues to flow well. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends on the relevance of the text being added. If commentary is padded out to justify use of a non-free image, this may result in irrelevant material or, as you say, undue weight. If the commentary is not particularly relevant to the article subject, the image illustrating it is unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#8 in increasing readers' understanding of the subject. January (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Violates WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. There is zero discussion about the photo in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, there was a lot more about the photo when this discussion first started up. What is there now is not sufficient to keep the photo as Stefan states. What happened to that information? --MASEM (t) 18:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Much of the information presented in this discussion was never added to the article. Usain Bolt is a well-developed and actively edited article, so editors there presumably don't think this was a significant enough event to merit more than those two sentences. January (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (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:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

{{archive top}}

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Even then the burden to provide an adequate rationale for the season articles would be on the users who want to include or keep the uniform images in those articles. As is, those images should be removed from the articles where 10c is violated. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:01, 9 August 2013 (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:Yahoo! Mail logo.png

{{archive top}} Needs converted to PD-text Werieth (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (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.