Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55
Latest comment: 9 years ago by EoRdE6 in topic File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
This is better determined at FFD (single image with single use) since the desired result is deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Filed. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free image whose subject itself was deleted for lacking reliable sources and for lacking notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Face (meme)). Even if it's listed (as is currently done) in the parent article (Troll (Internet)) as one of many examples of that topic, given lack of notability of this specific example, not sure the image is validly used here. There is at least one free image in the same section. DMacks (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (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.
RFC request concerning image File:April_2011_debut_issue_cover_of_Treats!.jpg
- 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.
| Voluntarily closing due to the RfC being malformed -- see below for the better formed RfC |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm requesting comments on an RFC over at over at the talk page of Treats ! regarding the above image, as I believe it fails NFCC 3,5 & 8. So far there are only three commenters, myself, the admin Chillum and the Article author TonyTheTiger. More input would be easily encouraged. Kosh Vorlon 18:11, 24 July 2014 (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.
No consensus. No non-free image in the article is used on another article, so problematic images should be nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:53, 3 August 2014 (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 page has unnecessarily many pictures of the character. Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Is this a {{PD-logo}}? I think so, but I would like a second opinion. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Probably a {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Likely {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Likely {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Probably a {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Probably a {{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Is this a {{PD-logo}}? RJaguar3 | u | t 05:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks PD-logo to me. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (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.
Remove from C-4 (explosive). Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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 picture is not needed. It is used in the C-4 (explosive) article. The fair use purpose claims to be "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The slurry manufacture of C-4 is not the entire point of the article; there is only a small paragraph about the process. It is also not an informative picture -- it does not illustrate the design of the still nor its agitation. Glrx (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- The type of equipment being used there is also common laboratory equipment (just here presented in a controlled lab). So this is definitely replaceable. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 20 July 2014 (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.
No consensus to convert it to PD-textlogo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Is this logo {{PD-textlogo}}? My only concern would be the layout of the circles, but it still seems pretty simple to me. TLSuda (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Edge case, I would cautionarily keep it non-free (the formation of the circles is the creativity part here) --MASEM (t) 05:26, 22 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? It seems rather simple to me. TLSuda (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 22 July 2014 (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.
Converted to PD-logo. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Below TOO? NFCC#10c violated in 2012 Furman Paladins football team and 1962 Furman Paladins football team. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Below TOO and thus uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Holdek (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2014 (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.
Remove from St. John's School (Texas). Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (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.
Does not fulfill fair use license requirement:
For critical commentary on
the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs
as it is used only on St. John's School (Texas). Holdek (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it actually borders on OR to say a film was shot at a given location by showing a still from the film and claiming that is the location (if it is not an immediately recognized landmark). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (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.
Remove from Frozen (2013 film). Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCCP#8. The image is currently used in two articles but its purpose seems to be primarily decorative. The scene depicted is not the subject of sourced commentary in either article and its removal would not be to the detriment of the reader. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unquestionably a misuse of the non free image not supported by policy or guidelines. Also has no FUR for one of the articles...although that would not matter.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation. Werieth (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue. This is not the logo of Microsoft and it is not used in any event-related articles. The various Microsoft Windows releases in whose articles it is used do not have their "own" logos. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Then the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page. We don't duplicate a company's logo onto its product pages if those product pages do not have their own logos. (One has to remember that the UUI are not written in generic terms but more specific pages, and in this case, about reuse of a logo several articles is clearly cautioned against). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not the Microsoft Logo. If it were, then you would be correct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- So because they lack their own logo they can include a wider topical logo to fill that gap? Werieth (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see what you are getting at. If we can find images like Commons:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg for each of the listed products then we can limit this file's use to Microsoft Windows. Note that the XP logo is hosted on the Commons. A non-free Windows logo would still be inappropriate on the company's page though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I meant (you're right, that's not the MS logo). However, given we have the MS Windows article where that logo would seem most appropriate, the individual versions should not repeat that same logo, those as I recall, there are variations of that logo (adjusting workmarks) for branding of each individual product, so that's what should be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see what you are getting at. If we can find images like Commons:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg for each of the listed products then we can limit this file's use to Microsoft Windows. Note that the XP logo is hosted on the Commons. A non-free Windows logo would still be inappropriate on the company's page though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- So because they lack their own logo they can include a wider topical logo to fill that gap? Werieth (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not the Microsoft Logo. If it were, then you would be correct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Then the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page. We don't duplicate a company's logo onto its product pages if those product pages do not have their own logos. (One has to remember that the UUI are not written in generic terms but more specific pages, and in this case, about reuse of a logo several articles is clearly cautioned against). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Commons:File:Windows logo - 2002.svg states that the 2002 logo, which is almost identical to the 2006 logo, is copyright-ineligible due to its simplicity. I would disagree, as the shading effect would IMHO make both the 2002 and 2006 logos non-simple. I also think Commons:File:Microsoft Windows logo (Pre-XP).svg is too complex to be "pd-simple" even though it is technically "composed of simple shapes and letters" - the overall number of rectangles and their artistic layout shows sufficient creativity for a copyright, at least to my non-legally-trained eye. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This image may be {{PD-simple}}: The 2002 logo was "kept" on the Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2002.svg. @Fastily: since you nominated the file for deletion last December, do you have any comments on whether the 2006 version is {{PD-simple}} or not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. This image is once deleted on Commons. Sorry. And Fastily will not respond. He was on English Wikipedia last on May 2013. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- This image may be {{PD-simple}}: The 2002 logo was "kept" on the Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2002.svg. @Fastily: since you nominated the file for deletion last December, do you have any comments on whether the 2006 version is {{PD-simple}} or not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Use on Microsoft Windows: The image was in use on Microsoft Windows. It is part of a series of images and removing the image would detract from the series. I added a fair-use rationale for that article with an edit summary of
- Adding fair-use rationale for Microsoft Windows - This is on admittedly shaky ground, discuss at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Windows_logo_-_2006.svg
- Expect other editors to come here to discuss the use of this image in the Microsoft Windows article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Retain: Hi. I spotted the following issues with the following discussions in this page:
- "This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation."
- No, it does not. That section talks about "events" only not "computer software". Logos of events are purely decorative while logos and icons of computer software are their primary means of identification.
- Even if clause 14 was to be generalize, this logo is a specific logo, which only applies to a small subset of Windows family.
- Extrapolating the clause 14 is a direct violation of NFCC § 3a: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
- "the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page". Doing so is a violation of NFCC § 1: No free equivalent and NFCC § 8: Contextual significance.
- "This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation."
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Microsoft thing was my bad, so ignore that. What the case appeared to be is that 1) we have the Windows logo which covers a family of products, and 2) that logo was being used on many of the individual products of that family when those products lacked individual logos. Assuming this logo non-free, those uses would be inappropriate outlined as NFC#UUI#14 and NFCC#3a (you only need the logo on the product family page), and the individual product pages would simply go without a logo. That said, I'm pretty confident each of the products in this family do have an individual logo (even if it just the wordmark of the product slapped atop the logo). As such we would allow each individual wordmarked product logo on those individual pages (this is the allowed spelled out in UUI#14). Note that this is based on the base Windows logo being non-free. If is free, these discussions don't matter. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Guidelines are only generally correct. So, that means extrapolating them should be done with caution. You are right that the difference is only in wordmark. (Windows Vista through Windows Server 2008 R2). We cannot forgo the logo in version articles (although we can do that in edition articles) because unlike Microsoft Office, each product does not have an icon as well. I think occasionally, you do run into non-free images that are used in so many articles and their use is justified; and we don't have hard limit either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, let's put it this way. If a product has its own unique logo (not shared with any other similar product), we allow that product logo on the product page. But if the product lacks a unique logo, and the most applicable logo (whether that of the larger product family or the vendor) is non-free, we don't allow that type of logo use at all, since the logo for the product family/client should a link away within the article's lead. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not saying I disagree; I love to keep our arbitrary standards fluid. But I also have been around and have a conception of the norm here. I think if you removed this image from those articles that I mentioned and instead added it to Windows NT or Windows, the image would come back over the course of a year or two; there will be reverts and redos but eventually, it stays. And, you see, the image isn't exactly a click away; it is a click a few wheel scrolls away. I learned it the hard way that the scrolling is the important part.
- This isn't just a gut feeling; I have a lead for you too: Four years ago, (Hint: I joined a year and eleven month ago) there was a discussion that logo+wordmark variations must be merged and the status quo that we see right now must be created. The discussion was abruptly abandoned when these logos were uploaded to Commons. Perhaps you can use your admin tools to investigate the now-deleted images and extract a link to that discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- First, I think we may need to refine some of our guidelines (especially WP:NFC#UUI). Also, I don't think that this or the XP logo are {{PD-simple}}. That aside, I want to discuss the uses of this image.
- Microsoft Windows - The logo just seems to be used for identifying the logo. I believe this use fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary about the logo in that article. I also feel this is unnecessary redundancy, because if you open any version specific article, the image is there.
- The remaining articles, in my opinion, should have the specific logos (I know the flag is the same) with the text. Microsoft spent much monies branding the specific way, with the bolder font followed by a skinnier font. I'm an IT professional (I can verify that for anyone interested) and I identify with the different versions logos including the text. This would be in line with other software including Windows XP (file is on Commons, but I dispute the threshold). Some of these have different flag logos (alternatives can be seen at Microsoft's website).
- If neither of these discussions are fruitful, my next question would be do we need both a logo and a screenshot (that includes the logo, more than just the start button)? Windows Server 2008 R2 & Windows Home Server specifically. Windows Mobile screenshot uses the plain white logo. And the background of Windows 7 uses a variation of the logo that many persons identify as specifically coming from Windows 7, so do we need further use?
- Sorry for being late to the discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. The problem with your argument #2 is that there is no specific logos. The logo + specific workmark is accomplished by inserting the Wikicode to this logo plus the wikicode to wordmark (already uploaded on Commons) together. Even then, this logo will be used on the same number of articles. Uploading images that contains logo + wordmark goes straight against WP:NFCC#3. The biggest problem with this discussion is an unwarranted interpolation of WP:NFC#UUI without a consensus.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the flag and wordmark combined are specific logos. Look at Microsoft's site, and the site that I link. Look at the software used on these operating systems. Look at the start up screens, etc. There is always the word mark with the logo. Also, think of Wikipedia's logo. The puzzle-globe thing is obviously an identifier for the project, it is globally recognized. but in any official capacity it includes the word Wikipedia (with a specifically chosen font).
- When it comes to WP:NFCC#3, using one logo 9 times, versus using 9 logos (including the wordmark) is no different. Either way is 9 uses of a logo, and neither minimizes use more than the other, so I don't think that is a fair argument in this discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wordmarks are not part of the logo; Microsoft just likes to use them. (It uses them in different languages and sometimes does not uses them.) I think no matter what we do, the number of images containing this logo in the articles cannot be so easily reduced. We must accept that we have articles that intensely tend to the subject. In that light, what you say about NFCC#3 would totally correct.
- Anyway, Timothy, I was assuming you'd be standing watch to eventually close the discussion instead of involving yourself. Not I that there is a problem; in fact, I think it is good that you decided to add input.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Normally I would stand-by to close, but when I thought about closing it, I had too strong of an opinion to make an impartial close this time. Realize that it is not my opinion to remove the logos completely, rather its my opinion to include what I think the full logo is (something we just disagree on, and that's okay). I also think its less likely to come back of an issue if they are different files (as no one could attempt to argue WP:NFC#UUI or WP:NFCC#3). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I just removed the NFCC#8 violations (someone mentioned them here) from Windows NT and Microsoft Windows, now that the 2002 logo is localized under fair-use. But of course, the time is ripe to decide the fates of File:Windows logo - 2002.svg and File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Normally I would stand-by to close, but when I thought about closing it, I had too strong of an opinion to make an impartial close this time. Realize that it is not my opinion to remove the logos completely, rather its my opinion to include what I think the full logo is (something we just disagree on, and that's okay). I also think its less likely to come back of an issue if they are different files (as no one could attempt to argue WP:NFC#UUI or WP:NFCC#3). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, Timothy, I was assuming you'd be standing watch to eventually close the discussion instead of involving yourself. Not I that there is a problem; in fact, I think it is good that you decided to add input.
- qwertyxp2000 says... I think the only scales that are available should be up to 1000px and plus 2000px is not necessary.
- Comment I have removed this from one page per WP:NFCC#9. I have not looked at the other pages, so I do not have an opinion about them. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Two month later...
- Commnet FleetCommand did a non-admin closure on this, with their reasoning has given below, but I believe this is in fault as 1) NACs are meant for non-ambigious cases and I don't believe this exists in the discussion above 2) there's demonstrated faults with NFC logic here. FC's comments are as follows otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Keep) In closing with this result, there were three topics to consider:
- There is no denying that the coverage of Windows in Wikipedia is vast; in fact no other non-free subject can match its magnitude. Higher use of non-free contents is only natural and acceptable.
- While guidelines are flexible rules that can be bent or even broken when common sense and consensus says so, this nomination suggests a dangerous opposite: Extrapolating a clause of a guideline outside its scope in absence of unanimous consent. Allow me to use an example: One person removes {{Di-no fair use rationale}} tag from an otherwise-empty description page of a non-free image, citing PROD removal procedure as the reason. He is no doubt extrapolating, but this is an act of gaming the system that defies both purpose and the spirit of the law. Similarly, extrapolating WP:NFC#UUI #14 disregards both purpose of the image and the NFCC policy, and is disputed by the participants here.
- A consensus spelled out explicitly on 8 July 2011 (approximately) in a discussion about Rozen Maiden characters (and used implicitly elsewhere) has it that the measure of the number of non-free contents used is not the number of files, but the contents itself, e.g. images shown at the top of Microsoft Office 2010 and Microsoft Office 2013 each consist of four copyright-protected item, not one. Likewise, the combination of a logo and its wordmark is two items, not one; only the non-free logo remains the same regardless of the wordmark, and infoboxes do not need the free and non-accessible wordmark because they already display an accessible title. So, no matter what you do, this frivolous approach of making multiple copies of the same logo with different wordmark is a defiance to the purpose of NFCC policy (preventing overuse) that serves no purpose but eluding a legal technicality (one wrong) resulted from stringent extrapolation of an already flexible guideline (another wrong). Two wrongs don't make one right.
- Meanwhile, editors should use this image on Windows Mobile 6.0 too, because File:Windows Mobile 6 logo.jpg consists of two non-free contents, instead of one: This logo, and a non-free background. Fleet Command (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Vast coverage does not automatically equate to a scalable allowance for NFC. Your last point is very off however. From an NFC standpoint, 100 reuses of the same image is equal to single uses of 100 unique images. So whether a product has the Windows logo alone, or the Windows logo with product wordmark still represents an equivalent case. Further, remember that if the copyright owners provide a single image that may consist of multiple copyrighted elements that they all control, that, for us, is considered a single image, so there's no reason to swap out the Windows Mobile 6 logo due to copyright, since that logo is still a single image.
- What does help is that if the product is distributed as its own brand with the Windows mark and the word mark, that shows to us it is a significant product that the logo+wordmark should be used to identify it. Contrast that, to , an article on Windows Solitare, a component of Windows. The logic in the close above would suggest that I should be able to include the Windows logo on the Solitare page because it is a windows product, which of course is unallowable, the whole point of UUI#17. Using the logo+wordmark, even if this is just "repeating" the logo, shows that the product is something branded and thus fits the reason we use the logo+wordmark to ID it. If the product does not have such branding, it should forgo any logo, even the Windows one. This situation has no harm from an NFC standpoint in terms of logo use. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Keep) In closing with this result, there were three topics to consider:
| Chewing on what has been said above or talking about a NAC, which is not relevant here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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.
There is consensus that at least the two non-free logos in the Variants section do not meet WP:NFCC and should be removed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (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 can't see the justification under WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFLISTS for 7 tagged non-free logos. Also, we may want to reassess all the logos to see which ones are likely to meet TOO and which one are not, as well as whether any of the old logos are in the public domain due to lack of notice. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "Variants" section, that begs to be cleared out, but the work to justify all other logos outside of that on an article about the history of the NBC logo makes the general uses appropriate. The variants like the Halloween or Valentine's day? Yeah, not really, but the rest seem well justified. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 19 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to only use the logo in Football Federation Australia. TLSuda (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free image used in the infobox of 11 articles. Use seems appropriate in Football Federation Australia but not the other articles. AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. And also, it is required to be in low resolution, but is available as a 1,024 × 1,024 pixel file. Holdek (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolution is a point I meant to raise but forgot. There is an alarming number of non-free files being converted to SVG and these are all high resolution, which seems inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Logos that are clearly non-free should not be converted to SVG versions. The only non-free SVG versions we do allow are those that can end up directly pulled from the owning-companies materials (eg extracting from a PDF). --MASEM (t) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolution is a point I meant to raise but forgot. There is an alarming number of non-free files being converted to SVG and these are all high resolution, which seems inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure of the licensing and use of this image. It's a derivative work and the uploader has released his derivative work to PD, but the way I read this the owner of the original art work has the copyright. It appears to be uploaded in good faith but its use is to illustrate the high denomination bills and not to discuss the art work itself. Can somebody with more expertise in media copyright take a look? Blue Riband► 13:54, 26 July 2014 (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.
This discussion hammered out many different possibilities about the copyright status image in question. There is some agreement that the flag could potentially fall under {{PD-laws}} but it was pointed out that the whole flag itself has not been shown to be pulled from an edit, rather just the CoA placed on a background. There is long-standing consensus that the CoA is replaceable as a new CoA can be re-drawn using the information described in the blazon. Although there was opposition to using a new CoA on a user-created flag not being the authentic or official or official flag, there is a rough consensus that supports the notion that this flag is replaceable due to simply being a CoA on a solid background. As such, the rough consensus is to remove the flag. TLSuda (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2014 (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 just taken this out of a number of templates per NFCC9 because it's shown as non-free. However, I've noticed that a previous version [4] was flagged as US-PD. Looking further into this, most of the other Italian region flags are on Commons. but they have usage notices like this one, which looks wrong to me as well (the copyright clearly doesn't lie with the uploader). If the Friuli one is OK to use I'll revert myself, but is there a bigger issue here? Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This fails NFCC #1 in the first place because as with all heraldic items it can be recreated from the blazon with a free licence. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The file page has some links to legal texts in Italian describing the use of the flags and arms of said region. I can't read them sufficiently but I've asked Salvio guiliano for help. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Those legal texts are laws of Friuli-Venezia Guilia about the flag. An image of the logo is depicted in the laws. I have provided links to those laws to provide support for the "PD Laws" [5] template that I put on the page, which has since been deleted.Italick (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, not true. If it were the coat of arms, I'd argee, but we're talking its flag, and while it uses the same symbols (the eagle with crown), the specific representation of it is going to be copyrighted. It's still non-free but it's not replaceable by free images. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Eg: File:Friuli-Venezia Giulia-coat-of-arms.gif can have a free replcaement. The document does include a blazon description for that. But that is the coat of arms, not the flag. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The flag has actually been replaced following this deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also, these flags have been derived from the respective coats of arms so I don't understand why they should not be replaceable. We're not talking about specifically created logotypes but about depiction of something described in the blazon. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The blazon (the text describing the COA) is public domain, and we've agreed that any coat of arm image can be freely recreated based on the blazon text (given enough adherence to quality and concept). But we also recognize that the COA once generated can be copyrighted (in most nations) and subsequent use of that COA on other materials will make those materials derivative works of that COA. In this case the region's flag is clearly a derivative use of the "preferred embodiment" of the COA. We can't use a user-created version of the COA as a replacement for the official flag because the official flag starts with the preferred COA embodiment. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Eg: File:Friuli-Venezia Giulia-coat-of-arms.gif can have a free replcaement. The document does include a blazon description for that. But that is the coat of arms, not the flag. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The file page has some links to legal texts in Italian describing the use of the flags and arms of said region. I can't read them sufficiently but I've asked Salvio guiliano for help. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that looks reasonable. But in that case we still need a FUR for the file. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- What I'm slightly confused by, is how does it differ from this on Commons, for example (which is used in the same way). Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I read what commons has on heraldy, the idea that a non-free coat of arms can be replaced by a free version made based on the blazon text description, which is not considered a derivative work due to how copyright law applies to the concept of blazons. But that's where that ends, uses of the coat of arms in anything else is then subject to normal copyright. This is probably a point we might want to ask commons who have some better experts there. (I do note the above image doesn't have any discussion around it so there's no take-aways). --MASEM (t) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- That is not exactly correct. The COA that is created from a description has no copyright status but that of the artist. Its use in a flag would be acceptable if the flag is no more than the coat of arms and has no other original work on it. See File:Flag of the Vatican City-3to2.svg. Also, We have already made a precedent that even a copyrighted coat of arms can be directly copied from the original work and used on Wikipedia by consensus and IAR. See Arms of Canada.
- As I read what commons has on heraldy, the idea that a non-free coat of arms can be replaced by a free version made based on the blazon text description, which is not considered a derivative work due to how copyright law applies to the concept of blazons. But that's where that ends, uses of the coat of arms in anything else is then subject to normal copyright. This is probably a point we might want to ask commons who have some better experts there. (I do note the above image doesn't have any discussion around it so there's no take-aways). --MASEM (t) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The use of the COA in anything else would only be a factor if it were copyrightable (such as the Canadian COA where we only allow its use in the one article and no where else), trademarked or, as being stated above, has a legally defined use per the country of origin that is still within that countries legal right of ownership or copyright. Some locations (such as the Vatican) have disclaimers about use and representations etc., but that is pretty much limited to using their flag to represent another entity. The funny thing is...it looks very much like the Vatican actually uses our SVG on their products etc. So, at any rate, yes the flag can also be recreated as long as it has no other original work and is just a COA because all you are doing is putting the original COA created from the description in a different shape.
- So, I would say this can be replaced by an a free version.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- My point is if a country's official flag uses a coat of arms image that is copyrighted, then even though we can make a new coat of arms image that is not copyrighted, we cannot "replace" the copyrighted flag image with this uncopyrighted one. A flag does not have the equivalent of a blazon that allows us to recreate it from scratch freely. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think I see what you are saying but I disagree. It is a tad complicated but see Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems:"An emblazon drawn to represent a blazon containing non-geometric shapes is copyrightable. An example would be the flag of the county Kent discussed above; the precise drawing of the horse is original enough to warrant copyrightability.[3] Again, coloring is immaterial: taking e.g. the emblazon shown at Flags of the World and changing the color to a slightly different shade of red (or to some other color) does not make the new image copyrightable in itself; it remains a derivative work and as such subject to the copyright of the original.
- But an emblazon drawn to imitate an emblazon containing non-geometric shapes is not copyrightable. If the goal of the author is to replicate a single preexisting work as precisely as possible, the result has no copyright beyond that of the original work."
- The Flag of Kent is copyrightable by the artist that uploaded it:
- I believe that means a blazon can be created on a national flag and be a free file as long as it is original enough to be copyrightable on its own..by the uploader or original artist.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The issue that I see is that the argument that we can recreate a flag that is simple beyond the coat of arms means that this image File:Friuli-Venezia Giulia-Flag.png could be called a replacement for the image leading this question, and serious, I see that as a problem because the flag's definition is the graphics, not the blazon concept. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- We have no way to know that. The flag here is recreated from the work of others and taken from other elements. That is very much acceptable because it is still using the text description as the base to even confirm it is what it is supposed to be. There are many flags, blazons, emblems and COA that are created this way. It is the same as if the uploader were the original artist as long as the elements are original enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only the coat of arms absolutely works this way; that's why any given representation of a coat of arms can be replaced by a free one because the blazon exists for it. There is nothing like that for flags. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand it is indeed what you believe but it does not appear to be accurate. This issue is originality and I am unaware of any special protection a national flag with any emblem, emblazon or COA has. What you seem to be supporting (please correct me if I am mistaken) is that any use of the COA on a flag, whether original work or not, constitutes a derivative work and is therefore not copyrightable and is retained as the copyright of the Country of origin. But...and this I strongly wish to state, you cannot create a derivative work from a description. As long as the work is original and not a close copy "derived from the copyrighted artwork" it is original enough to be copyrighted and may be released to Wikimedia Commons as an original work. There will be some limits on use for Wikipedia but the goal is to understand if the original upload can be replaced with a free file. From everything I am seeing, reading and finding, the answer is yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that these flags are not "the coat of arms of this region on this background", but "the coat of arms specifically illustrated by artist X's work on this background". That's the issue here. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- As long as there is originality, Commons recognizes such and allows the upload as a free license. That is the actual issue here. That means that this file may indeed be replaced with a free file. Wikipedia allows the use of these files as well and I see no issue, no policy, no legal reasoning against it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- We can certainly recreate a flag using the "free" coat of arms, but in terms of NFCC#1 equivalence, it's not the same thing as the official flag. It is not an issue with coats of arms because it has been determines that it is not the graphic aspect of the coat of arms but the blazon that specifically defines the coat officially. We always can recreate a coat in a free version because the blazon is the only "official" aspect. A flag is not the same - there is no equivalent to a blazon when we are talking about flags, though some language may be placed in the country's/region's laws, as is the case of the US flag, it is nowhere near as established as the understanding between blazons and coat of arms. Hence, the flag is a unique representation and cannot be replaced by free images. (However, one thing to keep in mind is the age of these, as many flags are outside of normal copyright terms, hence why at commons). --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not finding your argument persuasive in this situation. There is simply nothing that you have shown to demonstrate this as accurate. I am sorry, generally I tend to agree with you, but you asked for others who have some "expertise" in these situations and I find that you are simply attempting to place a special sort of category on flags that does not exist. As I said, and I repeat, as long as it is original enough to be copyrightable it may be used on both Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. It is that simple. The file does not pass criteria as non replaceable.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, the US flag is a horrible example as it was created so long ago it is clearly in the public domain and even if it were not it was created by the US government and those types of creations are always public domain.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not finding your argument persuasive in this situation. There is simply nothing that you have shown to demonstrate this as accurate. I am sorry, generally I tend to agree with you, but you asked for others who have some "expertise" in these situations and I find that you are simply attempting to place a special sort of category on flags that does not exist. As I said, and I repeat, as long as it is original enough to be copyrightable it may be used on both Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. It is that simple. The file does not pass criteria as non replaceable.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- We can certainly recreate a flag using the "free" coat of arms, but in terms of NFCC#1 equivalence, it's not the same thing as the official flag. It is not an issue with coats of arms because it has been determines that it is not the graphic aspect of the coat of arms but the blazon that specifically defines the coat officially. We always can recreate a coat in a free version because the blazon is the only "official" aspect. A flag is not the same - there is no equivalent to a blazon when we are talking about flags, though some language may be placed in the country's/region's laws, as is the case of the US flag, it is nowhere near as established as the understanding between blazons and coat of arms. Hence, the flag is a unique representation and cannot be replaced by free images. (However, one thing to keep in mind is the age of these, as many flags are outside of normal copyright terms, hence why at commons). --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- As long as there is originality, Commons recognizes such and allows the upload as a free license. That is the actual issue here. That means that this file may indeed be replaced with a free file. Wikipedia allows the use of these files as well and I see no issue, no policy, no legal reasoning against it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that these flags are not "the coat of arms of this region on this background", but "the coat of arms specifically illustrated by artist X's work on this background". That's the issue here. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand it is indeed what you believe but it does not appear to be accurate. This issue is originality and I am unaware of any special protection a national flag with any emblem, emblazon or COA has. What you seem to be supporting (please correct me if I am mistaken) is that any use of the COA on a flag, whether original work or not, constitutes a derivative work and is therefore not copyrightable and is retained as the copyright of the Country of origin. But...and this I strongly wish to state, you cannot create a derivative work from a description. As long as the work is original and not a close copy "derived from the copyrighted artwork" it is original enough to be copyrighted and may be released to Wikimedia Commons as an original work. There will be some limits on use for Wikipedia but the goal is to understand if the original upload can be replaced with a free file. From everything I am seeing, reading and finding, the answer is yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only the coat of arms absolutely works this way; that's why any given representation of a coat of arms can be replaced by a free one because the blazon exists for it. There is nothing like that for flags. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- We have no way to know that. The flag here is recreated from the work of others and taken from other elements. That is very much acceptable because it is still using the text description as the base to even confirm it is what it is supposed to be. There are many flags, blazons, emblems and COA that are created this way. It is the same as if the uploader were the original artist as long as the elements are original enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The issue that I see is that the argument that we can recreate a flag that is simple beyond the coat of arms means that this image File:Friuli-Venezia Giulia-Flag.png could be called a replacement for the image leading this question, and serious, I see that as a problem because the flag's definition is the graphics, not the blazon concept. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- My point is if a country's official flag uses a coat of arms image that is copyrighted, then even though we can make a new coat of arms image that is not copyrighted, we cannot "replace" the copyrighted flag image with this uncopyrighted one. A flag does not have the equivalent of a blazon that allows us to recreate it from scratch freely. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, I would say this can be replaced by an a free version.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_of_%2410,000_bills.gif){kind=link}
,_1962_painting_by_Frank_Lobdell.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_of_%2410,000_bills.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_$10,000_bills.gif){kind=link}
_of_%2410,000_bills.gif){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Friuli-Venezeia_Giulia.png&oldid=554884087){kind=link}
Okay, I think we're speaking past each other, in that we have general agreement on the copyright issues, which I believe matches Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems this essay's approach. We can certainly make a free image of the flag that uses the free version of the COA. And we're going to be using a flag image on this page, irregardless of whether it is a copyrighted or free image; that's not going to change. The sticking point here is is this an equivalent free replacement? Unlike a coat of arms which is the unique case (at least as defined by Commons) in which they specifically encourage recreating from the blazon, the flag is something very visible as the body's identification, and I find that there is no way that this "free" version File:Friuli-Venezia Giulia-Flag.png of the flag is an equivalent replacement of the image in question File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png. (At least with the free Kent flag, the reproduction of the horse is close enough to not so much a mockery of the actual horse). Could we get a free version that's a better match? Probably, but as Italick points out, this could be called free on en.wiki at least. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that "free" version is a mockery. While I was looking at it I thought I saw a piece of dust on my screen. I tried to wipe it and then I saw that it moves with the picture. There is a mysterious object on the turret below the eagle's tail feathers.Italick (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just not liking it is not an argument in any way. Sure..it is not great, but a better one can be created...that is the entire point of why the original non free file should be deleted. It can be replaced with a free file.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that "free" version is a mockery. While I was looking at it I thought I saw a piece of dust on my screen. I tried to wipe it and then I saw that it moves with the picture. There is a mysterious object on the turret below the eagle's tail feathers.Italick (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- To add, what this comes down to is exactly how is the region's flag defined by the laws of the region. In the case of the Kent flag, it appears to be defined as "gules, a horse rampant argent", as opposed to any specific graphical depiction, and thus we can make a free version; similarly the US flag (despite its date) has a textual description in law. I cannot tell due to language how the flag at issue is defined in the region's laws, but if the flag explicitly shows the graphics they use, or say about a specific version of the COA, then we cannot make a free replacement (though the image will be en.wiki free per Italick). If the language only says, to the effect "the eagle and crown tower against a blue background" and no more specific than that, then yes, we can make a free image, but it should be a lot closer to quality than the example above. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The Friuli-Venezia Giulia flag is public domain material in the United States because it is copied from documents of public law. The file was correctlty templated "PD laws" to be seen here [[6]]. The template was removed from the file's page. The flag cannot have a copyright status in the United States because it is an "edict of a government", and no copyright status in another country is known to me at this time. I do not purport that the flag is "free content" by Wikipedia's definition, though United States law does put it into the public domain. Flags and emblems of regions qualify for fair use in the articles about their subject. Reconstructed flags from blazons do not serve as alternatives because they are not truly the insignia of the region. There is a law in Friuli-Venezia Guilia specifying how the emblem looks. It cannot be more specific because the picture is in the laws to which I have provided links. Italick (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- This appears be true, checking the Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems essay. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look a the Italian Wikipedia article about Friuli-Venezia Giulia and I can see that they are using a graphic that differs from the one appearing in the laws. That picture of the flag is at Commons. [7] I doubt that the Italian editors would settle on an inappropriate flag for Friuli-Venezia Giulia. That said, it is hard to prove that the version on Commons is free. If we use the version on Commons, we consider it free just because it states that it is free. It is straightforward to demonstrate that the one copied from Italian law is public domain matter in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italick (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's my point above - if the law has design one with very specific graphics, we should be using that (which will be PD-laws), which we can use as free though it is not as free as the one at commons, but it is also the accurate representation. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as the Italian law is concerned, it is being discussed on Salvio Giuliano's talk page and Salvio is getting it right. I have not found a picture of a flag per se in the laws. However other laws, for which I have not provided a link on the flag's page, specify that the flag is a blue rectangle with the coat of arms centered in it. The law to which I provided links is the document from which I copied the coat of arms to edit onto a blue rectangle, which has the same hue as the coat of arms depicted in the document.Italick (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio has looked into the decree and he found that there's only a blazon of sorts [8] but apparently there is no "official" depiction mentioned in the document as in "use this and that style created by artist X". And as Italick just mentioned, there is no depiction given in the text itself, so the image we're talking about is not part of the decree that in itself is PD in the United States. The image is unfree and replaceable and therefore we cannot keep it. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The whole manual of use is a part of the law. The text of the law indicates that it is an appendage to the law. It is designated as attachment B in article 6, paragraph 8 of the decree. When you are taking from laws, you are taking from the US public domain. Italick (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete as replaceable per De728631 and the exhaustive discussion above.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the current image should be PD-laws, and okay to use, until a fully free image can be made that is of appropriate quality. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Then if there is no official graphical specification, beyond the language on that diff, then yes, this can be replaced, but the replacement needs to be something less "childish" than the previous attempt. Consider the replacement of the Kent horse that we use compared to the "official" one - that's fine. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter if it is "childish" or "adultish" it just matters if it can be replaced. Do I think that free file is all that good...no, but that isn't the point. We do not have to wait for a better file to know that a file can be created.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- What has been determined is that the current one is a PD-laws free image (as the coat image is one published in official documents from the region's government). It can be made world-wide free by using a different COA image in the flag, but as long as the current file is free, there is no rush to do that. If the image was non-free, then yes, the removal for the potential for having a free equivalent should be done immediately, but when we're taking about a better free image for an image otherwise already free (per NFC and the Foundation) there is no requirement to rush on that. And it would be much more appropriate to get a non-childish image for replacement before removing the existing PD-laws free one. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The law of 2001 does invoke a blazon. However it defines the flag as having the region's coat of arms, whatever that might have been in 2001. The coat of arms may only have had a semantic (blazon style) definition in 2001. The 2006 law adds more clarity to the official flag by defining graphically the coat of arms. In 2006, the arms were given graphical definition, which adds to the semantic definition in 2001. I think that following the 2001 law to put the symbol of the region on a blue rectangle today would mean referring to the law of 2006. Italick (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- What are these graphical definitions of 2006? Do they provide sample images of the eagle and tower inside the official decree with a specific style that has to be copied for every use of the flag? De728631 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- That graphical definitions of 2006 are the manual of use that we looked at. Article 6, paragraph 8 indicates that the arms will appear in "allegato B" (attachment B), which is the whole manual of use that is incorporated into the decree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italick (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I have here is that Italy does not have a Government made edict similar to that of the US. I am trying to better understand the claim that this is in the public domain and request that be broken down a bit to explain. If this is true we have little more to really hash out.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am saying that the image is US-PD precisely because a part of it is from a public law of Italy, and the other part is only a blue rectangle surrounding the part from a public law. So it is not subject to copyright in the US. I did mention before that I don't think that the Italian Wikipedia would have selected an inappropriate image for the flag, and they have selected a different rendition that is hosted at Commons. So maybe that image is a decent free alternative. Should we switch to a commons image, where it is difficult for us to verify that it is actually free? Black Kite pointed out that many of the flags on Commons have questionable free licenses. Italick (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Black Kite is absolutely correct about that...but then that is also irrelevant as I am not using that as a basis for my argument. My argument is simply that, as a blazon it can be created as an original piece and that the current image under discussion is not free. You are claiming public domain. OK, but how? I am not seeing it...yet. I have no idea what you mean by "Public law" please explain. Italy does have a copyright law and it is actually more strict than most it seems.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The public domain is local to the United States where Wikimedia has its servers. Some other countries might not consider the file to be in the public domain, and the PD-Laws template displays that advice to visitors. The file is not "free" by Wikimedia's definition. It is only "non free" with the potential for fair use by Wikimedia's concept of freedom. That is why I tagged it for EnWiki only (no transfer to Commons). By "public law", I just mean a law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italick (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- This next request is extremely important. Please explain in as much detail (even if you have to repeat yourself) why it is your belief it is in the public domain in the US.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png is in the public domain in the United States because it is not copyrightable in the United States. It is not copyrightable in the United States because a part of it is illustrated in a law of Italy. The other part of File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png is a blue rectangle, which may not be copyrighted in the United States because it is a work of simple geometry. Laws are not copyrightable in the United States as a matter of public policy, because this policy gives citizens the freedom to read and copy them. Both domestic and foreign laws are denied copyright by this policy in the United States. Wikipedia explains this in its template:PD-laws and in the Edict_of_government article. See especially Edict_of_government#definition. The essay Wikipedia:Copyright_on_emblems refers to a case of a German flag that may not be copyrighted in the US for the same reason. Italick (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The German flag is only geometric shapes and cannot be copyrighted. The essay makes that perfectly clear. The first part of your explanation is the issue. You claim PD because of 17 USC 102 but that pertains only to bare facts. You clearly state that the Italian law does more than give "bare facts" but shows an illustration. That is copyrightable.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png is in the public domain in the United States because it is not copyrightable in the United States. It is not copyrightable in the United States because a part of it is illustrated in a law of Italy. The other part of File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png is a blue rectangle, which may not be copyrighted in the United States because it is a work of simple geometry. Laws are not copyrightable in the United States as a matter of public policy, because this policy gives citizens the freedom to read and copy them. Both domestic and foreign laws are denied copyright by this policy in the United States. Wikipedia explains this in its template:PD-laws and in the Edict_of_government article. See especially Edict_of_government#definition. The essay Wikipedia:Copyright_on_emblems refers to a case of a German flag that may not be copyrighted in the US for the same reason. Italick (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- This next request is extremely important. Please explain in as much detail (even if you have to repeat yourself) why it is your belief it is in the public domain in the US.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am saying that the image is US-PD precisely because a part of it is from a public law of Italy, and the other part is only a blue rectangle surrounding the part from a public law. So it is not subject to copyright in the US. I did mention before that I don't think that the Italian Wikipedia would have selected an inappropriate image for the flag, and they have selected a different rendition that is hosted at Commons. So maybe that image is a decent free alternative. Should we switch to a commons image, where it is difficult for us to verify that it is actually free? Black Kite pointed out that many of the flags on Commons have questionable free licenses. Italick (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I have here is that Italy does not have a Government made edict similar to that of the US. I am trying to better understand the claim that this is in the public domain and request that be broken down a bit to explain. If this is true we have little more to really hash out.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- That graphical definitions of 2006 are the manual of use that we looked at. Article 6, paragraph 8 indicates that the arms will appear in "allegato B" (attachment B), which is the whole manual of use that is incorporated into the decree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italick (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- What are these graphical definitions of 2006? Do they provide sample images of the eagle and tower inside the official decree with a specific style that has to be copied for every use of the flag? De728631 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter if it is "childish" or "adultish" it just matters if it can be replaced. Do I think that free file is all that good...no, but that isn't the point. We do not have to wait for a better file to know that a file can be created.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio has looked into the decree and he found that there's only a blazon of sorts [8] but apparently there is no "official" depiction mentioned in the document as in "use this and that style created by artist X". And as Italick just mentioned, there is no depiction given in the text itself, so the image we're talking about is not part of the decree that in itself is PD in the United States. The image is unfree and replaceable and therefore we cannot keep it. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as the Italian law is concerned, it is being discussed on Salvio Giuliano's talk page and Salvio is getting it right. I have not found a picture of a flag per se in the laws. However other laws, for which I have not provided a link on the flag's page, specify that the flag is a blue rectangle with the coat of arms centered in it. The law to which I provided links is the document from which I copied the coat of arms to edit onto a blue rectangle, which has the same hue as the coat of arms depicted in the document.Italick (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's my point above - if the law has design one with very specific graphics, we should be using that (which will be PD-laws), which we can use as free though it is not as free as the one at commons, but it is also the accurate representation. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Friuli-Venezia_Giulia.jpg){kind=link}
Italick is refering to 206.01 of the US Copyright compendium: "206.01 Edicts of government. Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." [9] --MASEM (t) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Uhm...of course the edict itself is not copyrightable...but the flag is not an edict. This simply tries to claim something is PD because it is mentioned in an edict, but that is simply not accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the flag image is published in the edict, then it seems to be in the PD for the US. If it was mentioned but not shown, sure, but Italick has stated the graphic is published in a specific appendix of an edict, and as such, falls within 206.01. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Plain and simple...no it doesn't.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the flag image is published in the edict, then it seems to be in the PD for the US. If it was mentioned but not shown, sure, but Italick has stated the graphic is published in a specific appendix of an edict, and as such, falls within 206.01. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to check with someone and get back to the discussion in a bit.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have not heard back from a friend of mine who has some serious expertise in copyright. Generally he is very good in answering my questions but as a teacher, he may be a tad busy this weekend. Not sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- We'll keep this open until you get his opinion, but based on everything I'm reading on the US "edicts of government", it's whatever is printed and necessary to disseminate laws, and so if there's a law that says "this graphic is how our flag looks", that puts that graphic into the public domain within the US. Nothing in the edicts concept appears to be limited only to text, for example. But it would be good to get a copyright expert opinion. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- And of course you know I disagree strongly with that but I will let you know if there is no response or a refusal to get involved. That is always possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is my belief my friend may not want to be involved in this...so we should continue. I will post should they add input to my inquiry.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- On a closer look I couldn't find any image of the flag inside the 2006 version of the edict. They do show the coat of arms though on page 10 of the pdf file in what they call the "manual of use" (manuale d’uso) [10]. So I'm wondering whether the actual flag image was been created by Italick himself using the template arms from this guideline. And I'm also skeptical that the appendix can be counted as part of the official decree consisting of 9 articles in the first part of the PDF. The only image included in the evidently legal and official part is the logotype shown on page 5 of the file. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I cropped the coat of arms from page 10 of the decree and displayed it in a blue rectangle. That is the only way that I can be sure that the file in question comes from laws and not somewhere else. Actually page 5 is attachment A, so it is no more or less included than page 10 within attachment B, which begins on page 6. Italick (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would have to dig around again, but somewhere in reading about the "edicts of gov't" aspect, one example validate by a court was a ruling that consisted of the actual law that left open to a secondary document for details, and the secondary document (an executive order). Mind you, there's also a case argued that the law in the US for things like building and safety codes spell out specific non-gov't agency reports with those codes that must be followed, but those agency codes are only available at cost (eg they are copyrighted), which seems counter to that. It's not 100% clear here. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- And of course you know I disagree strongly with that but I will let you know if there is no response or a refusal to get involved. That is always possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- We'll keep this open until you get his opinion, but based on everything I'm reading on the US "edicts of government", it's whatever is printed and necessary to disseminate laws, and so if there's a law that says "this graphic is how our flag looks", that puts that graphic into the public domain within the US. Nothing in the edicts concept appears to be limited only to text, for example. But it would be good to get a copyright expert opinion. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's consider two routes here, pending more details:
- Iff the flag image falls under PD-laws (that is, it is considered part of the region's edicts, specifically defined by graphics, and that the copyright section 201 includes non-textual aspects of edicts), then the image is free for use on en.wiki and there's no need to replace it. (We are not required to make a en.wiki free image into a commons free image).
- Otherwise, the image is non-free, and arguably can be replaced, but the replacement needs to be similar in quality to the Kent flag (where it's clearly similar to the Kent horse but not 100% the same), and not the "mockery" that the example free version above is. The flag is a representation of the country, and we should be using something that looks reasonably close to what the official gov't documents use for the flag. Yes, the image, if it is defined by text only in gov't edicts, can be recreated and this image should be deleted, but the current free replacement should not be used at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- My friend got back to me. His free time is very limited and he had a house guest. His opinion was and is: "Have someone to independently create an image and everyone move on to the next dispute" And yes, I wouldn't use the other free image. it is not of a quality that I find worthy of our articles, but...I am still working on a COA for Canada to replace the non free SVG that should not be used. If we go by that standard we should probably leave the image as it currently is as having no quality replacement at this time. I don't like that...but it has precedence.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Technically we don't need a free replacement before removing a non-free image, but the question if this is non-free remains. But I would think a smart action would be to engage the GL or anyone that wants to do it to make a free image, and keep this one (on the basis it falls in an area we're not 100% sure about yet) until that one is available. But I would think it would be smart to try to figure out something definite about this type of image and where it really falls because it can affect a large number of works (fortunately, to make more free, not the reverse route!) I'm not a big fan of where there is an "official" version of a flag of using something that is close but off, as that can be potential misrepresentation if the flag image is defined by law. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove the images from 2022 Winter Olympics per WP:NFCC since they have individual pages that the logos would are appropriate at. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2014 (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 concerns the usage of the following files on the page 2022 Winter Olympics:
I cannot see the justification under WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFTABLE a justification for any of these files to be used in the 2022 Winter Olympics article. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Typically we have separate articles for the major bid cities (see London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics for example), where the logos are clearly appropriate. They shouldn't be on the overall page about the Olympics. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 31 July 2014 (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.
,_1962_painting_by_Frank_Lobdell.jpg){kind=link}
Although there is consensus that this may not be the artist's most notable image, there is no discussion here about whether the image meets WP:NFCC or has other non-free related issues. TLSuda (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (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.
why is this image used at the article on the artist? its not mentioned in the article as his most notable image. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
,_1962_painting_by_Frank_Lobdell.jpg){kind=link}
- I looked around and can't find much that identifies this image as a prime example of his work. There appear to be other pieces, like Wonderland, that seem to have more attention, but considering other artists, this one does not seem to have a "key" signature work, so the example should be picked to at least one mentioned alongside his name (not this one). --MASEM (t) 17:19, 31 July 2014 (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.
RFC , take 2
Discussion this there and it is moving (albeit slowly and not in the past week) so any further comments should be made there. TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (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.
So I closed my prior RFC as it was suggested that it was malformed I've re-opened it here . Your input would be appreciated. Kosh Vorlon 17:03, 31 July 2014 (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.
There is consensus for some of the non-free files to be removed, and as such all but three have been taken off the article. TLSuda (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (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.
Too many images; a few or couple must be removed. George Ho (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Only image that we would allow (given lack of discussion of singles covers of the other versions) is the first one, rest should be removed. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed all except New Order image, Orgy image, and Flunk image. They are valuable in comparison to The Loco-Motion. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove from team articles per WP:NFC#UUI §17. TLSuda (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (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.
Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Bhutan Football Federation. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- In what way? This is the badge that appears on the shirt of the teams run by the Bhutan Football Federation. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They're all under the same organization, so as child organizations, if they dont' have their own logo, you shouldn't just repeat the existing one. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. The teams are child entities of the association. Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, the logo should only be in the article about the parent entity (the association). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- fair enough they shouldn't be In the team articles then. Looks like there'll be a fair few sport articles affected by that in the future. Fenix down (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted to the copied out versions in all articles bar the Federation article. Fenix down (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. The teams are child entities of the association. Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, the logo should only be in the article about the parent entity (the association). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They're all under the same organization, so as child organizations, if they dont' have their own logo, you shouldn't just repeat the existing one. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gross violation of WP:NFCC#9. Maybe even suitable for WP:CSD#U3. Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- No question that all non-free should be removed. I'd might have some allowance if it was a mainspace page temporarily userfied, but this is a standalone user page so the non-frees are unallowable, period. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'd already whacked them before even seeing this discussion; the violations are undeniable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (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.
Consensus is this file is below the TOO for at least the United States. TLSuda (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is claimed that this file is unfree. This looks all wrong to me. It only consists of very old stuff (Olympic rings and the Andorran flags) and very simple stuff (standard typewriting, the Andorran flag, the Olympic rings and a very standard escutcheon). It should be changed to a public domain tag instead. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's at least PD-logo for US, below the TOO. Might not be worldwide free. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 5 August 2014 (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.
Outright failure for logo use. Removed from OK City Thunder article. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Oklahoma City Thunder. Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used twice in the article, but only has a FUR for one use. Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (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.
Free version found and replaced. --EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This beautiful photograph was taken by Chris Tilley of the Associated Press, as can be seen in the image's extended metadata. The uploader has misidentified the copyright owner as the AP member newspaper, which was his source. It should be reviewed.
Invalid fair-use claim F7: "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately."
It would be a shame to delete it, but the "fair use" claim really needs work if it is to be kept. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I can correct the source, but the image is the subject of sourced commentary as it displays the exact damages sustained and described in the article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting the copyright. Where are people talking about the picture? Who is commenting on the picture? I mean, other this stuff. Can you cite your sources, please. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but I think you misunderstand the meaning of "sourced commentary." At present the photo is used in List_of_rail_accidents_(2010–present) and 2015 Mount Carbon train derailment. The F7 rule (Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F7) is that:
- If the photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article
- Then the press agency photo does not qualify for fair use of a copyright image.
- It can be tagged with a {{Db-f7}} template. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- As of now, it appears that the article comments about the train derailment for which some of the aftereffects are depicted in the AP photo but the article does not comment specifically about the AP photo itself. (An example of the latter might be if the AP photo itself was widely considered to be iconic and was described in other media as having an effect on public perception with regard to the specific train derailment.) As such, it would seem that the AP photo does not meet the non-free content criteria. For illustrating the topic of the article, one or both of the two free images File:Mount-Carbon-West-Va-2015-train-derailment-response-1.jpg and File:Mount-Carbon-West-Va-2015-train-derailment-response-2.jpg on Commons should suffice for replacing the non-free photo. --Elegie (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I like public domain response-1.jpg and substituted it for the AP photograph, which is now an orphan. Thank you for finding the Coast Gaurd photographs, Elegie. I suppose File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg should get tagged {{Db-f7}}. I should do that? - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is long since closed, but fuck all if I know how non-free review works. I know how to close at AfD and FfD but this unorganized mess? Idek. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.